I would say you definitely understand something better if you can make it intelligible to those less intelligent than oneself, but I don't think I don't grasp algebra because I can't teach it to my dog. Some things are just complex and simply beyond some people. It doesn't make someone less intelligent if they are able to grasp something extremely difficult but still unable to communicate that thing to someone else.
The issue in this cute remark is the meaning of the word "understanding" A lot of people use that word but not a lot of people know what it really means. When I "understand" something how do you know I really did? What is this test to evaluate "understanding?" The meaning of "understanding" is ineffable and can only evaluated indirectly through behaviorist experiments. For instance one can erroneously say a child understands quadratic equations if they are able to apply the proper formula to find the value of X. However does this child really "understand" quadratic equations? Can they, for instance, describe the relationship between those equations and conic curves, or Kepler's laws or planetary motion?
@@ece5925 I don't really think money can buy happiness, but it can give you a sense of security and opportunity, which can facilitate happiness as long as it doesn't make you greedy and corrupt you (basically if your life doesn't revolve around it). Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily make you a degenerate materialist, it's how you spend or invest or donate that money. Bill Gates donates nearly half of his income to charity. I do believe that giving to other people, whether it be your time, money, or whatever else, plays a huge role in a person's happiness and self-worth.
Because they can buy things all people should be able to afford within reason. I mean, should anyone in this day and age have enough money to buy a planet?
Money is NOT the 'root of all evil'; The LOVE of Money is the 'root of all evil'. I got my degree in economics almost 40 years ago and have studied Economics my entire Life. No matter what Marx proclaimed, Money IS essential for an Economy to go beyond a Hunter/Gatherer society. Money simply makes "Barter" easier by putting a price on everything instead of trying to deal in mere trading of goods. Money can be "good" or "evil" depending on its use...
+randy109 you are right... one can argue that every concept is as evil as the people taking advantage of it... one question, since im no expert and i would like an opinion in that matter, why dont we use a credit system instead of monetary?!
+randy109 our use of a profit based, "growth" driven monetary system has become one of the greatest destroyers of the natural world and sustainable human values. The entire global economy requires "cyclical consumption" to operate, which means that money must constantly be circulating. Thus, new goods and services must be constantly introduced regardless of the state of the environment and actual human necessity. This "perpetual" approach has a fatal flaw for resources as we know it are simply not infinite. Resources are finite and the Earth is essentially a closed system. To assume the need for constant consumption to keep people employed and hence the market system going is eco-cidal on a finite planet. The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite.
Subjects of Economics and Philosophy should be compulsory right from the early age classes... It is very important to educate the young about what is happening around us and why!
Philosophy is too abstract before university because students dont have the experience to connect to philosophy and their minds are not fully developed. Students need less abstract applications of philosophy, ie, science, history, math, literature. Marva Collins Way-Marva Collins Teaching Johnny To Think-..... ........Leonard Peikoff
I think system just want worker to do their job meet metric by the end of month. They want good employees. They don't want intellectual to understand whole process (the big picture).
@@bsurajraju Which is why we have the saying _caveat emptor_ - let the buyer beware. Buying Apple today is a fools errand. They're way too much into their walled garden philosophy.
communism is when your power shuts down at 9 pm and you go cry to your mommy cause you had no idea that was also a part of communism. indoctrinated clown
The misconception these socialist philosophers have is they think goods being successful being on the free market represent their philosophically objective value. They do not. The works of Adam Smith will always be of more philosophically objective value than of Dance Moms. However, the success of goods on the free market represent their Socially Objective Value. This means their value to the user in the context of their life. Another example, an airplane is of greater philosophically technical achievement than a bicycle. But if your transportation needs do not exceed the needs of a bicycle than why would you buy an airplane even if you had the money? Another example. Lipstick is of less philosophically objective value than a microscope. But lipsticks socially objective value is greater to the Starbucks barista whose difference of having lipstick or not might be the difference between confidence or shame.
However, this does not mean that the socially objective value of a product is completely subjective. If a barista has enough money for lipstick but did not budget enough money for a doctor to use a microscope for a medical exam, she learns a better way of budgeting. The free market serves as a teacher. I propose that Capitalism is not only the most rational social system, but the most moral social system as well. It is only system that protects individual rights.
Bigdawgphilleep It's up to a person what kind of path he decides to take in his life. Taking one aimed towards becoming a businessman yourself is not easier than the road of becoming asomeone's employee. But in the end capitalism creates work for everyone and is aimed to please society's demands. What better system would you propose? I'd say that the real issue is that people just have tendency of getting pampered, life is just not as easy as a fairy tale.
Bigdawgphilleep Excuse me for my ignorance, but about what political favors are you talking about? Using life as commodity, disposing when not needed anymore - what are you talking about, assasinating employees after they can't do the work anymore? I think you're just exaggerating what happens when someone gets to point of getting fired from his job. In which way do you see it as "disposal"? More like something what happens when business is doing terribly to point that there is no other choice but to start cutting expenses as much as possible. Could you enlighten me also about how does capitalism kills those refusing to participate in it?
+pRopaaNS 1) It's up to a person what kind of path he decides to take in his life: But a person's path is also decided by the wealth of that person's parents, the country in which they were born, the gender and race they are, and a whole host of other variables. Capitalism does not by any means makes things 'fair.' 2) Capitalism creates work for everyone: That's not a good thing. Work for the vast majority of those who live in the capitalist world is dull, repetitive, and uncreative. A better system would give wealth straight to the people without such soul-crushing demands - we certainly have enough resources and automation to do so, especially since we could eliminate useless work that creates no real value, yet is maintained because of the capitalist-created, arbitrary connection between labour and the right to eat and sleep under a roof. 3) Capitalism is aimed to please society's demands: Only to the extent that pleasing these demands is profitable for the capitalist. Its primary purpose is to make profit for the capitalist. 4) Life is just not as easy as a fairy tale: You're not wrong. But it's not a valid ethical judgement because it says IS, not SHOULD. We have enough resources and our production is automated sufficiently to provide the entire world with a much higher standard of living than most experience right now, so why should we shackle ourselves to what IS? Certainly capitalists did not have qualms about overturning feudalism because "that's just the way it IS." If humanity needs hardship, why shouldn't we return to a hunter-gatherer way of life? And why don't we engineer hardship in a way such that people have to give their consent to experience it, rather than have poverty and wage slavery forced upon them?
***** 1) I disagree. Indeed people around influences a person and perhabs in many cases strives him to take certain paths in his life, but in the end that person decides himself, even if he doesn't realize that. Taking a path carved for you by others is still your path and your choice, because too much pressure can make a person to decide otherwise and refuse that path people keep pushing him for. 2) The dull boring work is also the easiest one to do. To get more exciting and interesting work better education is neccesary. Many people might not be all there for carving their future when going to school and university but be forced there by people around them, but in the end it's their choice whenever to take studies seriously or not and become a routhine worker in some factory. 3) Capitalist don't get all of the profit in his own pocket. All of the profit made by company must be invested to further expand and improve the comapny, stuffing the money in your own pocket is illegal addording to law. He can only give himself money what he formalizes as his own salary. 4) I don't disagree, but I don't like when people complains an stays negative in face of having great opportunities and resources. Negativity is useful to extent of keeping expectations in the right place, so you can apprechiate when things go better than expected. Expanding negativity towards your outwards view on the world while keeping expectactions overly positive is not going to end well for you. Never beign satisfied, nothing is as good as you'd like it to be.. Why do you have to torture yourself? I don't. I think that the life is fine, because the reality is better than my expectatctions inside. That's why I say that life is not fairy tale, to remind myself that I'm not taking an acid trip and to place my feet on reality as it is.
Jesus Christ was upset with the merchants because they were using "His church" as a market place. He wasn't upset with them conducting business, but only where they were conducting it. "My house shall be called a house of prayer." Matthew 21:13
Solomon Chang: I just find it funny how the majority of American Christians support the Republican party like they're in some sort of denial of who and what Jesus really represented. That was more my point to it :)
That's so true, the opposing side is so stupid and mean for supporting this ideology, as they believe it will enhance and prosper the lives of his family and community 😂😂😂 So instead of having compassionate conversation with them, i will make both of us suffer in a cycle of fighting 🧠
Disappointed that there was no mention of Keynes, Hayek, or Friedman. You can't quite summarize fully the development of capitalism without mentioning the works of these economists and their applications by world leaders.
@@marka3122 Perhaps you're correct. I just rewatched the video and my assessment wasn't completely accurate. It's not so much their knowledge of capitalism that's lacking. My issue is more with the implications the video makes. The problems that it details, and many others espouse, also happen to be the very reason why capitalism is so successful. They can't be divorced from each other. The experimental nature of capitalism is precisely why it works. No one can really predict whether something like smart watches will be a revolutionary invention until it's tried in the market. Turns out that they aren't really all that useful but hindsight is 20/20. I was alive when home computers were considered by people, who pretended to be in the know, to be just a fad that would die out soon. Nothing of any real practical use. Had central planners control over what products and services could be offered to the masses, we might live in a completely different world. As for child labor, harsh working conditions and "exploitation of labor", many people of today, yesterday and forever socialists, always make the mistake of looking at the past through the rose-colored lens of the modern day. They also mistakenly view events as snapshots in time as opposed to its full context. Slavery was an institution from the beginning of time until very recently. Child labor also always existed as well. The wealth creation and economic gains of capitalism is the one and only reason why these things have been removed from society. If children still needed to work in order for people to not starve to death, no one would think twice about it. It's only when we became wealthy enough that there was virtually no place for children in the workforce that we got rid of it. Many nations still haven't reached that point yet but they will soon. And when they do, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they do the same exact thing we did: outlaw child labor. Unless the world totally fraks things up, we'll see a world without legal child labor very soon (50-100 years). Freedom and capitalism is and has quickly improved the world. We would be so much worse off without them. I just hope that we keep moving forward.
I am really enjoying these films. Thank you so much for putting them together. I do have a request, though. It would be so helpful if you all could include subtitles of the scripts that are being read. The automated closed captioning that UA-cam provides is not always accurate. As an educator, I can say that being able to read and watch at the same time would be a real enhancement to this curriculum for my students and me, making it easier to commit names and terms to memory without having to stop and look them all up as each film plays.
+The School of Life I want to add also once you have subs in english the next step is to have it in other lengages. I'm from Argentina (spanish speaking) and it would be very helpful because most of the people don't know english and also it would be easier even if you know. Thanks for your videos. they are very helpful.
yeeter, right-on but Marx's issue with capitalism was with time, it would save, enrich and eventually impoverish workers. The firsts two industrial revolutions are good examples, as well as the 80's for the West who's working class used debt (money lenders) to maintain their quality of life. Brexit and then Trump is 2016 version. When democracy falls in the West, will Karl have the last laugh?
@M33ble Brexit for the people by the people? The promises that won those votes came to as much fruition as repealing Obama Care, building the Wall, getting tough on China etc.... which all led to catastrophic economic losses. Outside the EU, who exactly was Britain going to trade its surplus output with, and if they were allowed to trade within the EU, at what additional costs? As a small business exporter (multinationals just borrow money made out of thin air (The Fed)), would those additional costs make you noncompetitive in nearly all foreign markets? The icing on the cake is these state crippling issues have yet to be resolved on either side of the pond. Are we getting the picture that low info voters can be dangerous to Democracy? Better yet, there is a 2500 year book that can explain it much better: "The Republic" by Plato.
Exactly bro. Just don't be poor, it's that easy. As the most intelluctually talented philosopher of the western world, Ben 'The Destroyer' Shapiro debunks a common concern raised by climate activists. "Where will I live when the sea levels rise and my house gets flooded?" Ben 'The Destroyer' Shapiro solves, in his answer, the easy solution not only to this particular problem but also every single complaign about capitalism and poverty in general. Ben 'Mega-Brain' Shapiro states "You don't think the people will simply sell their houses if the sea level rise?" And I think that this can be generalised further: Why don't poor people don't just sell stuff, open up a business or get good education so they can have a good job? It's honestly that easy! I think it is because they actually 'like' to be poor. They don't do shit about it, because, if they would become wealthy, it would prove that capitalism is in fact the single best ideology on our planet. They, however, want to keep their revolutionary beliefs and leftist ideals, and will also for that reason, in fact, stay poor and throw their lifes away. Checkmate.
@@lulla8312 so people with wealth doesn't deserve their wealth?? they were just too lucky risking their money and working on their businesses for soo long. it is not easy to get wealthy but capitalism makes it that if u work hard enough u will make it
A lot of people think that their systems are all one or all another without realising just how blended they can get. One might live in a highly capitalistic society, but if you pay taxes that keep the street lights on or the get the bins collected, well, you've got elements of socialism in your country. The problems with each system are mostly due to the depth of their implementation, not just implementing them at all.
People say americans don't understand communism and socialism and there's a lot of truth in that but the same is true for capitalism. A lot of people see the world we live in today and use that as their basis for capitalism and give you some mundane generic description of it like "meh pick yourself up by your boot straps" or "meh rich get richer poor get poorer".
Responses to the two "flaws" in the video: Flaw 1: Capitalist countries should not force labor (as mentioned in the video), so if the pay does not compensate for the work and conditions then the workers should quit which would cause the price of labor to increase for that company. If people are willing to work for less, then the positions will be filled and goods will be cheaper in competitive markets. Flaw 2: If people are spending their resources on trinkets then it must have value to them, why should a government deny it?
Flaw 1: I think you're right, that generally people are not forced to work and that job opportunities, even low-paying ones, are better than no opportunity at all. I think what irks workers is seeing the fruits of their labour being sold for dozens if not hundreds of times more than they're being paid for their labour. Now, you might say that there's no coercion or trickery in that, after all, they should have known that going in but the fact remains that people will feel unjustly treated even if those feelings aren't strictly rational. The central point is that extreme inequality makes people feel like the system is unfair. Now, you might say that's irrational, but I'd say to you that treating highly evolved apes like strictly rational creatures is irrational. If you zoom out a lot, here's what people see: extremely low-paid workers manufacturing the very items that are being sold to make record-breaking profits. When viewed from this height I think it's easy to understand why people have problems. Flaw 2: I think I see the same problem in this flaw as in the previous one: again, you seem to want treat people as though they were rational agents. If people want to spend their money on heroin, why not? If people want to spend their money on unhealthy sugary/salty/fatty foods, why not? If people want to spend their money on superficialities made to cover-up their physical flaws, then why not? Expensive cars to buttress their masculinity? Rare earth gems to heal their spirit? The point is that if you raise people in an environment where distractions, unhealthy foods, addictive substances, and psychological crutches are prevalent you're going to get a bunch of fat addicted sickly people with tons of psychological issues (that sounds like a pretty accurate description of many people in the west, no?). Now, SOME of those people might still have enough self-control and reason to make it through unscathed, but they will increasingly be the minority. If people were taught self-control and emotional-regulation in school then maybe I'd be ok with a world like that, but as it is, they're not. And huge corporations know it. They know our insecurities. They know our cravings. They know what makes us feel comfort and anger, and many of them are without qualms in targeting those human qualities to turn a profit. I think it's hard to know "what's good for us" and I hate the idea of some committee of self-important people deciding what's best for all us stupid apes. I definitely think that should be avoided, but on the other hand it's obvious to me that politicians and corporations understand human nature so well these days that they're able to use our shortcomings to their benefit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think the system should treat people like they're rational and free - they're not. We're highly emotional and irrational creatures with a tendency to make mistakes, a limited capacity to understand, and subject to all sorts of biases. Why not have a system that brings out the best in us, rather than exploit the worst in us?
@@janpetrykowski4794 Yes, but bringing out the "best in us" was covered in the video. It failed because people wanted coffee... It will always fail because people will always want coffee and chips and stuff like that. The system shouldn't mandate what we can buy. It should help us understand and become less emotional and irrational creatures as you said. There is no other way. Keeping all these shortcomings and somehow still living in a healthy world can't be done. No government can force that. It can only show us the path we have to take ourselves. We have to change by our own will. The Government can't force it. It can try, but it can't work.
7:02 - I agree with the video, but like, wasn't Venice built on proto-capitalism? That city grew filthy rich from being a vital tradeing post between western Europe and the East
Yes but at that point in time, the capitalism that was being practiced in Venice did not involve any factories and certainly not to the extent of the UK at that time.
@fabian michelsson Venice was brought up as an example of what that one guy thought money should be spent on instead of frivolous tchotchke. The channel isn't a detractor or critic, its doing a *history* of capitalism. Pretty defensive there (1930) what do you have to be (2008) so defensive about?
No, Venice was not built on proto-capitalism. Proto-capitalism started in Great Britain with agrarian capitalism which was precipitated by Locke’s new definition of private property and the creation of vast spaces of enclosures which destroyed the commons (lands for common use) upon which much of the peasant class required to farm and hunt. Renaissance Florence and Venice were not proto-capitalist economies.
@fabian michelsson Capitalism is not the natural culmination of history. Mercantilism is not an early form of capitalism. There are no early forms of capitalism. Capitalism represents a historically specific social form and a historic rupture with earlier forms. “Vastly successful commercial city-states like Florence [and Venice] did not give rise to capitalism, while capitalism did emerge in England, whose cities, in the context of a precociously centralized monarchical state, were arguably among the least autonomous in Europe.” -Ellen Meiksins Wood “The critical factor in the divergence of capitalism from all other forms of ‘commercial society’ was the development of certain social property relations that generated market imperatives and capitalist ‘laws of motion’, which imposed themselves on production. The great non-capitalist commercial powers had producing classes and especially peasants who remained in possession of their means of subsistence, and land in particular. They were ruled and exploited by dominant classes and states that relied on ‘extra-economic’ appropriation or ‘politically constituted property’ of various kinds. These great civilizations were not systematically subjected to the pressures of competitive production and profit-maximization, the compulsion to reinvest surpluses, and the relentless need to improve labour-productivity associated with capitalism.” -Ellen Meiksins Wood “Capitalism is a system in which goods and services, down to the most basic necessities of life, are produced for profitable exchange, where even human labour-power is a commodity for sale in the market, and where all economic actors are dependent on the market. This is true not only of workers, who must sell their labour-power for a wage, but also of capitalists, who depend on the market to buy their inputs, including labour-power, and to sell their output for profit. Capitalism differs from other social forms because producers depend on the market for access to the means of production (unlike, for instance, peasants, who remain in direct, non-market possession of land); while appropriators cannot rely on ‘extra-economic’ powers of appropriation by means of direct coercion - such as the military, political, and judicial powers that enable feudal lords to extract surplus labour from peasants - but must depend on the purely ‘economic’ mechanisms of the market. ” Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View
Karl Marx advocated for communism, but wrote a lot on capitalism more than anyone, there is no way you talk about capitalism without mentioning Karl Marx.
@@stroodlepup how in any manner was Karl Marx one of the bourgeois . he lived in dept until a communist bourgeois helped him out . but in no other manner was he a traitor to his own class .
Ali Al Rida Hammoud And even if he was a part of the bourgeois, that doesn’t invalidate his criticisms against the system. You can criticize an oppressive system even if you’re in a position to benefit, something right wingers don’t understand
Watching this great lesson, I remembered poor Citizen Kane...Friends who haven't seen it yet, indeed really should. Some say it is the best movie of all times. Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater wrote a book called Amador for his 15 year old son, to teach him Ethics and there he talks about the movie: "Citizen Kane devoted many years to selling all his people so that he could buy all his things; and at the end of his life he realizes that if he could he would trade in his palace full of expensive possessions for the one humble object- an old sled- that reminded him of a certain person, namely, himself, before he gave himself up to buying and selling , when he preferred loving and being loved". You may think it is an innocent and harmless thing to buy all that stuff you don't need. But indeed it is a moral obligation to analyse yourself everytime thinking " what do I want this for" ?? Frankly I think no one would ever buy a Vuitton bag for 2.000 euros, if they were not allowed to show it to anybody! It is all about asking for attention, recognition and being loved, but there are many other, healthier ways for it!
@@DKazzix the 2008 crash of Wall Street and financial crisis was caused by government investment in non-sustainable markets, which leads to economic booms at first and then extreme busts at the end.
@@mr.e2962 Yeah nothing to do with how capitalism has literally always worked.... governments, oligopolies or monopolies etc. are everywhere and yet idiot libertarians pretend there's ever been or ever will be a "free" market. Right next to the slave markets I suppose...
@@geol5448 Common ownership of the means of production is socialism. Government involvements in markets are like, the actual basis of capitalism even existing. Capitalism and the modern industrial nation-state are basically coextensive. If the government launching foreign wars to secure energy resources and cheap labor (slaves, oil, etc.) wasn't happening capitalism would cease to function. Not to mention the primitive accumulation (stealing land) that was supported by the government that got everything started.
In Capitalism there is only the owner and the Employee. Ultimately, the 'Employee' makes the products, takes those products to the market, sells the same products, he made, to himself and finally he pays a fee known as Profit to some 'Owner' for a permission to own the same products he made and sold to himself. The owner gets to collect profit for doing nothing.....and many call that 'earning' instead of 'taking'.
“…the oppression of the poor must always establish the monopoly of the rich, who by engrossing the whole trade to themselves will be able to make very large profits… the rate of profit is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.” An Enquiry Into The Nature And Causes of The Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith 1858
monopoly its not the name,because monopoly cant exist in a free market, byou mean Big companies, that also means faster production and lower cost, which means lower prices so actually it helps people, they are saving money that now they can spend in some other product helping another shop to grow. And the only way monopoly exist is because of the state and its regulations that always are better for minorities. with free markets, monopolys doesnt exist, its just how everything evolve, and if you think about it "monopolys" or big companies are the one that give us Computers and vaccinations, also industrial revolution. So Capitalism is the way the human keeps evolving, now using his mind to keep the wheel spining.
@KAOS NATION you drank the american capitalist koolaid . I suggest you read the writings of the man who actually first coined the word in an economic treatise - Marx, and stop listening to right wing propaganda which you have done a great job of explaining. Capitalism has always been an oppressive system, commerce is the free market.
KAOS NATION Can you explain what is pure capitalism? You mean a market without regulation and without politics? Like when URSS switch to capitalism you know how that turn? Their worse economical crisis, mafia was everywhere and control the whole market. "Capitalism" started to work only when government started to implement regulations. And I like how you refer the early 1900’ saying it was its purest form of capitalism while ending up with its worst financial crisis ever. Kinda fail And don’t forget that it’s actually because of the two world war that USA (and all the other to this very day) is that much of a super power
Why a minimum wage and not a maximum one. Why minimum annual earnings (poverty line) and not a maximum of annual earnings (line of unethical wealth) ? Are resources infinite and inexhaustible ? Or does trickle down economics really work?
Exactly. Abundance not scarcity. Trickle UP economics. Human-centered capitalism that puts people before profits, always. And include everyone in a healthy econ-system. Those who are retired, disabled, going to school full-time, stay-at-home moms, artists, basically all the "others" whose lives we assign no value, or as only having potential value, which wil be evident once they are willing to exploit themselves serving food to strangers for $7/hour. It is a slap in the face, bringing someone food for starvation wages. "THAT is all you are worth woman, now smile and make nice if you want this two dollar tip." The good news is: UBI. We don't all have to contribute and receive value in the same way. Andrew Yang's book explains it better than I can, based on facts and common sense: "The War on Normal People." Elon Musk, Billl Gates, MLK Jr all came out in public support of UBI.
@@imagin.e.ternity minimum wage is essential if we are not to go back to slavery. But no maximum yearly earnings, in capitalism (=that is never ending accumulation of capital in $ and commodities) leads to the "1% owning 50/60/80/90% (i don't really know the numbers) of global wealth" phenomenon
The problem is it's easier to prove someone is getting a minimum wage, and harder to prove someone has exceeded a maximum wage. Look at Putin. He's rumored to be worth tends of billions of dollars that are undisclosed. Unfortunately, what probably would happen is politicians + intelligence agencies would have immense power over the world's wealth (likely becoming the richest people in their nations), and that effect would likely be worse than investment-capitalism.
@@Sooyush capitalism is bad? Lol Says the guy using UA-cam On his android/apple phone With picture in his designer clothes... What a hypocrite. If you want socialim or communism go ahead and donate your salary to the government. You can do it on the treasury website.
@@Jack-xy4fy Capitalism is selling of innovation, not creation. All the sciences weren't developed for a grant money. There's a thing called passion. I agree communism is so ideal that it cuts out necessities, which lack innovation. But not passion. So, capitalism is like having a gun to your head to get your work done, while communism says, take your time, live your life. I hope you'll read to respond not react. And by the way, Trump got impeached.
@@Sooyush Suyash K Kishore firstly, I know what capitalism is, so why did you explain it to me? At what point did I mention inventing anything? You still bought expensive products rather than buying a cheap locally made item, so you yourself are reaping the benefits of capitalism whilst saying its "bad"... That is why you are a hypocrite. Secondly if the iPhone was made for passion then why are apple multibillionaires and why are they not producing new innovations and rather just sticking other people's new innovations on their product... Oh that's right because it has nothing to do with passion and everything to do with keeping the market share.. Take your time, live your life? Lol and if everyone does that then their is no innovation, just look at how little innovation comes from communist countries compared to capitalist. Finally I'm not American, so your ignorance couldn't be more clear than right now when you not only assume I'm a trump supporter, but assumed I'm American and also assumed that I'd even give a shit what you say about him. ...hillary clinton is nothing more than Bill clintons seamen recepticle and Obama only got into office because he is black and people felt obligated to vote for him to feel less guilty about being white in America 🤷♂️
The beauty of capitalism is that you always have a choice. Just because products are cheap and potentially unhealthy for instance, does not mean you are forced to purchase those products. I'm currently commenting using a 5-year-old smartphone and checking the time on my $18 Casio digital watch with a 10-year battery that I don't plan on changing for another 9 years. Companies will always try to market things to people that they do not need. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the choice as to whether or not they partake in those purchases. I've heard the argument a million times that because a company makes something that people think they need then it is the evil capitalists forcing individuals to buy those things and forcing people into slavery to produce them. In a capitalist system, everything is based on choice. The choice to purchase, the choice to produce, and the choice to own one's own labor and be compensated at a rate mutually agreed upon by the employer and the laborer.
This was a terrible video, you must not know much about history. This video claims to be a history of capitalism and it did nothing to tell that history. It didn't mention how civilization transitioned thru various economies as it transitioned thru various methods of organizing a nation state.
Pretty good video but you're taking Jesus way out of context. He was mad at the money changers (retailers) for doing business in the temple, because it "was a house of prayer". If you seek to show Jesus was against capitalism, you'll need to dig a little deeper.
It's pretty easy to get a camel through the eye of a needle, so I bet all kinds of rich men are getting into heaven. Spend your life in pursuit of the root of all evil what could go wrong? The Bible has an opinion on money and chasing it. The vows of poverty didn't come out of nothing.
@@TheGroovyJones and what about the parable of the gold coins? A clear instruction from jesus to invest your money into something profitable like a business. By the way the bible say THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Not money itself. God made King Solomon one of the richest people that ever lived. God never says money is bad just don't love it.
@@vinuzo9548 You understand parables are metaphors, right? It's a message about stewardship for the gifts and graces of god, like our land and rivers and climate, not instructions to invest money. Jesus is the ultimate communist. Someone's hungry? Feed them. Cold? Clothe them. Sick? Heal them. Not if they can afford it in money, not at a certain level of profit, just take care of your fellow people on Earth. The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others what makes you lots of gold."
laurence. S nope, in america during the great migration you just found land and built your house, i think you can still do that in mexico. as for the means of production crap, that would be the 2 hands and feet you were given
laurence. S yup when america went west you could set yourself where you wanted, the government didn't cut up land and gave it out. maybe places like texas still do that.
I believe in spending in things that are actually worth the cost. Mostly in things that will surely be handy in present as well as in the future. Thanks for teaching me this wonderful lesson.
Yeah I'm surprised to find that out! Potable water isn't available to drink freely out of taps here, but water is always the cheapest drink you can get anywhere! It's crazy to think how soda is somehow cheaper than plain water.
I guess that depends on where you live? Potable tap water is free where I live in the United States. Bottles of water are 2/ $1.59 at convenience stores.
loved it... so well explained... i love the editor... nobody talks about him! i know the narrator has a very soothing voice... but this team is briliiant... i love this channel... \m/
East Germans: Okay with secret police, oppressive Tankie regime, inefficient planned economy, and a lack of basic liberties we take for granted. Also East Germans: THE COFFEE'S GONE, LET'S RIOT!!!!
There is a staggeringly important lesson nested inside that... Complicated, bitter but obscure truths can and will endure in the heart of the common populace, but once enough people can't get whatever it is they consider important, then the shit truly hits the fan.
@@dirkscott5410 Sure, I never claimed the totalitarian regimes running the communist bloc countries were the epitomy of evil. But I strongly disagree with any government that censors people who speak against the interests of the state.
That's how it goes, people will take it and take it, endure the systemic decay and the worsening of the overall conditions, until one day something trivial like coffee or something trite in comparison to the overall issues that people aren't reacting to, will spark a volcanic eruption of dissent.
@DUDAH thank you!!! Someone said it. Also let's not forget how immoral the other option is. Socialism is theft. Theft was never advocated by jesus. Socialism is theft because it forcefully takes money or even private property from one person and gives it to someone who had not worked for it in the name of "equality". That's just theft, no other way of looking at it, it's theft and stealing is a sin.
@@omkhetz3798 Alright guys, you really wanna go? Okay... 1) I grew up in the service economy. I've worked in Hollywood, I've seen the lifestyle of the .01%, the billionaire class. Below them, an invisible majority live in poverty. I can safely say that the USA is a third-world country, with a first-world aristocratic class. Hollywood and the media industry are the marketing campaign to hide these truths from the rest of society. 2) Yuppies do not have it "easy" when they spend their entire life in debt slavery, paying off loans, going bankrupt from medical emergencies. Only the wealthy have it easy in America. 3) @DUDAH You can only tell someone they "don't know economics" if you understand the fundamentals of capital, labor, use value, exchange value, surplus value, artificial scarcity, etc., better than others. Based on your comment, I'm doubtful of that, but maybe you can change my mind. 4) The "socialism is theft" claim just demonstrates an embarrassing lack of historical understanding. In 1797, Thomas Paine wrote "Agrarian Justice." Be careful... if you guys read it, your brains might explode when you realize that one of America's most influential founding fathers during the Revolutionary War was, by your standards, a "socialist."
@@AlessioMorello anecdotal opinion is invalid. First of all, the USA has better wages, better standard of living, better quality of healthcare, low prices for great products, most businesses, most amount of millionaires and the most innovation on earth. Your anecdotal evidence shows the incompetence of the liberal Californian government with its over regulation, high taxes and bad social programs. California is the most Socialist state in America except maybe for new York or Vermont. It shows how Socialism doesn't work. Compare California it the much more free market freedom loving texas, both have similar populations, similar climates, similar geography, similar latino-american culture, the one thing that is completely different is it's economic development. Texas has no state taxes, less regulation, less state run programmes, cheaper products, cheaper housing, Texas is more free market. You go to Texas and you see an abundance of things that would be considered a luxury in California. Things like 3 bedroom housing with a front yard and a garden with a swimming pool is common. That's the free market. The issue of wealth inequality isn't a bad thing. Let's say there are 10 people in a room and they all have $10. 1 of the 10 people decide to write a book and decide to sell it for $1. 5 of the 10 people decide to buy the book. Now the author has 5 customers all willing to pay $1 for the book. the author now has $15, 5 people have $9, and 4 people have $10. No immorality was done but look, there's inequality. It's not an injustice.
The thing with capitalism is there’s a large percentage of people that are limited. They don’t have the capabilities of others. That’s where we blame the system. Yet the problem is equality. People want to be free but their successes finically undermine others. The solution isn’t socialism but a better regulation of capitalism. In theory you need traits from communism socialism and capitalism for society to function in balance with every person. With all of their natural capabilities and talents.
“Italian merchants likely learned the (double-entry book keeping) method from their interaction with ancient Indian merchants from the sea trade; the double-entry system was founded on a "Jama-Nama" system which had debits and credits in a reverse order” - JR Edwards, A history of financial accounting. It is not that difficult to find the true source. But it spoils the narrative of the “industrious west” from where all the ingenious stuff of the modern world originate!
Alexander The Great spread the Greek culture of reason to mystical India. The resulting rationality may have guided the discovery of double-entry. Alexanders teacher was Aristotle, the discoverer of scientific method.
There is no "main reason". Want it or not, capitalism allows for economies to grow. Not saying is perfect, or that there is no poberty or explotation, but we just need to accept this truth.
@@PandasUncle Britain wasn't thinking short term with their plans. There's a reason the US has conflict mineral policies. The industries that were setup by the imperialistic powers last century (such as the diamond industry) were built to extract resources and build dependence. That's why you'll see so much corruption in the continent of Africa. The leaders were planted with connections from foreign countries who helped to build the infrastructure and were funded by outside countries to restrict the flow of resources to certain countries. Just look at what happened in Nicaragua as well... funding from outside countries destroyed any hope of building free enterprise during that time. Not shifting any blame away from the leader's of these countries but there were outside pressures and going against them back then was not a good idea - especially if you did not have a strong military.
as long as sense (and meaning) in life is given by money (capital), we're f····d. And yes, Capitalism is voluntary exchange, but as long as it gets any profit. If slavery would get you any profit, it could be considered then (as logical and even as fair). In fact, regarding actual exploitation and general world poverty, I don't think we're very far from a form of slavery. That's why is so dangerous a claim such as Locke's who wanted that Poetry was not taught anymore in schools... because it was not practical enough (that is, because you cannot make money out of it).
I completely agree, there are masses of individuals across the globe who only partake in their line of employment because they have no other choice due to extremely low living conditions.
Good that this addresses the specific flaws of capitalism we can focus on instead of engaging in outrageous utopian thinking which can easily make us feel good about ourselves.
*The love of Capitalism is the root of all evil* How about that? Capitalism itself, cannot be good or bad - it's merely a system. It's *people* that do good or evil.
systems can be good or bad, I feel like a syetm is like a machine...its built to do something and to do it a particular way, the way its built in some ways does condition or encourage how it is used thats the left critique, there are productive and positive aspects of capitalism, but as a machine it seems to naturaly produce some quite bad things and seems to encourage or conditiion people to participate and even benefit from them, the history of capitalist sucess has also ben followed by a history of its excess and destructive capability which has to be regulated and tamped down, the trouble is these crisiss seem to keep happening which begs the question, as a machine is it fixable?
@@matthewjanney2399 I partly agree. However, I still think *it is our values and decisions that have the final say* Your 'machine' analogy lacks human input - whereas, capitalism, like any other system, is conceptual and therefore, its results are determined by people. A physical machine without human input, say a computer or a motor, is possible to improve upon.
Socialism is immoral because it forcefully takes money from the person who had earned it, to someone who hasent in the name of equality. That's theft , that's pure evil.
controversial Indian That’s closer to capitalism than socialism. Under socialism workers make what their labour is worth, under capitalism there’s always a capitalist stealing some of the fruits of your labour despite not having worked for them.
Capitalism has launched Humanity into the Modern Age. But, Capitalism is not only a system of economics; Capitalism is a system of governance, and a system of social control.
Very good and unusually honest summary of the situation in East Germany. Many East Germans still had relatives in West Germany, who would sometimes send packages with products from West Germany, like coffee, chocolate, or clothes (some of which were ironically produced for export in East Germany). West German TV antennas radiated far into East German territory, and a majority could (and did) watch West German TV commercials. This steady, but slow trickle of the luxuries of capitalism did more to fuel the reunification than fear of the Stasi or any political issue, because it concerned the whole population, not only a small elite of dissident intellectuals.
Love this series but I was kind of disappointed with no mentioning of Milton Friedman, especially when an advocate of capitalism was Bill Clinton instead of Friedman...
I think this video misses an important point: people aren't upset that some have more than others.it's that banks have been allowed (particularly in the US) to run amok.
nanomantube Eugenics has a long (and rather dark) history in the US and Canada too. Unfortunately the topic is often reduced to one of historys biggest crimes.
@@alafolieee it's obvious that making a video about capitalism without mentioning colonialism, slavery (more than a tiny box about Adam Smith), Marx and his contributions to understanding how the system works, labor exploitation as a source/necessary for profit, imperialist wars, is propaganda lol.
Spartan 506 that’s the funniest fucking comment I’ve ever fucking seen. If you genuinely believe that, you are the fucking dumbest person to ever exist.
Bruh, colonization didn't really make much money at all. In fact, when Britain was debating whether to give autonomy to India, a British economist calculated Britain was actually losing money by keeping India.
+william hopper That was towards the end of colonization when Britain had drained all of it's wealth fighting the wars and also caused a famine in India.Churchill didn't care much.India was a pool which provided more than 2 million soldiers to the allies to fight the axis nations. A very little known fact.
At risk of sounding like a traitor that brings shame to my ancestors, I was born in Hong Kong and I can't quite imagine what this city would be like in my lifetime if it weren't for the British's colonization.
The problem of capitalism starts with a "category error": treating the fundamental factors (land, labour, capital) as being identical in nature... "Why make a distinction between apples, trees, orchards, trimmers if they can be sold as commodities". For example, the exploitation of workers is the direct consequence of the story that a worker can hire his labour only -- it being separate from his being -- the story of labour being "alienable". This hides the unrealistic eventuality that "labour" simply wont be marketed when wages are competed down to below survival level.
The thing about capitalism is that it adjusts to humans to how they naturally are. It doesn’t impose upon them how someone thinks “people should be” I hear from communists all the time “People should be more generous. So we will force then to be” That’s dangerous
Clearly comunism is far from perfect. We can also see (especially nowadays) bad consequences of capitalism (no virtues or morality more valuable than money, dangerous amounts of power in rich peoples hands, faking science data for marketing reasons, naive believes in endless economic growth, producing landfills of rubbish products just to spin the sells, the lightbulb conspiracy, brainwashing marketing strategies, destroing whole ecosystems for income - to name a few). We have two systems that are not working and we constantly compare them against one another. It's especially visible in my home country (post communist bloc), where if you dare to say a bad word about capitallism, society will call you a communist straight away. There are other choices out there! It's not like we are trapped in this binnary prison, where we have to choose between capitalism or communism. Read about resource-based ecconomy. Not saying thats the perfect system, but it's an example of other alternatives. Our imagination is only limit here.
@@lipperioss but the greed of a powerful multimillionare has far greater consequences than the greed of an average human being. While i do get the point being made in the original comment; there is only so much liberty and power you can allow an individual to have before it turns dangerous
@@sahilasif40 Sahil Asif of course the greed of the powerful has more consequences... The more power you have, deeper will be the consequences. But human kind is made of a lot of things, including greed. And there is no way to eliminate greed from the mankind. Greed is intrinsically human. So it is not capitalism that is oppressive. The human being is oppressive. And no economic system will ever be able to avert that. Nevertheless, capitalism is the only economic system to this moment to be able to improve life standards while keeping a minimum of freedom to the individuals.
Yup. We may question on why we are spending too much on less needed things but that's the reality of man. Our discontentment never ends. On the Capitalists a never ending contentment of wealth and on the consumers a never ending contentment of wants. They understand it. If we just reside on what is essential this world will be equal.
@Giggler Later doctrines? A doctrine is a belief of a church. So you're saying a belief in and older church was removed from the beliefs of newer churches? That had better be what you were talking about because you desperately need to understand that we have literally thousands of articles from Hebrew and Greek that all still can be held in your hand to this day that all cross reference eachother and all were located in different areas. Even if that is what you meant you are still mistaken. Nothing has been removed from scripture. Jesus removed the money changers just as Derek said. This was also the action that set up the Crucifixion. Jesus was keeping all commandments...and it was given to Moses that the act of usury is illegal.
But the point is not about "economical theory" but "why trade is something desecrating" which can be developed into "what is in trade, that is bad enough to be prohibited to the point that no other than son of god use force to remove it from temple?".
thanks to capitalism, world poverty has dropped from more than 85% to 10% in 200 years. The problem is not capitalism, it is the consumer. Basically all of us, but it is solved as easy as if we think that those watches are not worth the suffering of the exploited employees, it would be enough not to buy them, then they will not be produced anymore because they do not generate income, period. the only problem in capitalism is the lack of values and virtues of the majority of the population, but that can also be solved with a better education.
@@thomashidalgo6975 and yet thanks to capitalism (its the only way I know), it embedded inequality in countries, societies and systems at the same time as 'improving' things like poverty. The problem debatably is not the consumer, but capitalism's top-echelons existing on encouraging consumption of things 'consumers' dont need, as you intimate Thomas.
@@DavidHoodEdinburgh Corruption embedded inequality. And for the consumer thing you forget that it is the consumer who chooses what to buy, what company to invest in. And no communism isn't free of corruption it just gives all the means of production to the states basically giving them more power and if those ones get corrupted well ... That's why people are fleeing Cuba
@@DavidHoodEdinburgh don’t hate the player hate the game. The consumer nor the producers are at fault. Because of the consumer-to-producer relationship the world is overall improving!drastically. But to fix the issues of the game you need proper leadership from those who create the rules to capitalism. A worldwide agreement. Chinese labors laws would not fly in the USA. And the USA is no saint either. The consumer is heavily influenced by marketing tactics and media consumption in the USA! This should be regulated and more awareness should be provided to the consumers at the most basic education level that we already have at school. The question is why aren’t they doing it? Well the world is not on the same page at all. If we start making changes to help everyone in our country we have to make sacrifices overall. And that would lead to a vulnerable position against competitive nations across the planet. There should be no limit to how much a person can earn. But there should be many limits to how he obtains his earnings.
@JD just trying to understand the point JD, but it is not the consumer that causes the inequities in life, it is the unfettered elitist capitalism (not capitalism itself) that is the problem. Consumers buy and support corps and 'things' based on manipulated information, traditional structures they think are the same as good performance, when actually the global system extracts value for the few. @Matthew773, ditto, and yes indeed the world is improving, but in nation-states that are 'rich' foodbanks and poverty that could be reduced, is not, due to dogma and self-interest. It was always so. I agree with your thinking in part, re (carefully) educating children that they can, and are, being manipulated (and so are us adults!)
Oh really...Jesus tied a knot in his belt (tooling up) and said 'Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade', seems pretty clear to me. And as for finance, capitalism is the race to the bottom, because competition demands it...not that difficult. You capitalists don't mind getting bailed out with all that tax money though when it goes belly up.
@@smellslikethinice1107 I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Jesus was not against trade. He was against disrespecting the purpose of the temple. There is a distinction. His earthly father was a carpenter, and his own disciples were tradespeople. I strongly doubt that they consumed all they produced, all the fish they caught, all the furniture they made...
@@midkort Obviously you have no understanding of what I wrote, and no understanding of true capitalism. What we have now (UK) is not capitalism, it is fascism .
@@smellslikethinice1107 Fair enough, let me clarify. I was not commenting on capitalism, etc. My comment was only in response to the interpretation of what Jesus did in the temple.
I think our greatest problem today is not how we make capitalism more beneficial for all, but how we prepare our transition from capitalism during a time when technological progress is rapidly replacing the functionality of capitalism in the development of civilization. In hindsight, Marxism is almost prophetic, yet entirely lacking the vision and optimism to predict that capitalism could birth the very key to liberation from capitalism, the microchip. We're at the very threshold of a future where labor as we know it can be eradicated as if it were a debilitating disease like polio. How we approach this monumental achievement will determine how painful this transition will be. We can see the symptomatic anxiety of the social challenges we face reflected in modern politics, as social democracy attempts to alleviate the burden of inevitable change while the rising authoritarian right struggles to hang on to the status quo through mythologized sentimentality. Capitalism, like so many former economic and social paradigms, is nearing the end of it's usefulness to the project of civilization. The question therefore is not how do we improve capitalism but how do we let go of capitalism to embrace a new era full of human potential.
its not capitalism that caused the abundance of products, its science and technology. so capitalism is just a way to rule people, the Ideology of a plutocracy.
+Ibnziyad Tariq Science and technology would be useless if their methods were never permitted to be practiced: What point would there be in developing faster farming techniques, if you would not be allowed to sell crops freely/independently at the market by the time harvest comes around?
Max Fuller your right bu t this is not capitalism, this free market, capitalism is privileging the ones with capital over the ones with none (workers).
The contribution of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Colonialism to the Industrial Revolution in Britain should forever haunt Capitalism and its foundation.
The Macrobian Nomad fiat currency manipulation by the central banks should haunt your dreams every night. We are on the cusp of an inflationary depression all because you morons don’t understand the difference between gold and currency
@@actualideas8078 the difference is that at least you can make electronics and nuclear research hardware out of gold, on the other hand once made currency is useless except for the reforging of coins into metal tools
I am pro freedom in most cases but when automation becomes fully viable I cant see how people will live without universal basic income. The opportunities just wont be there for some people.
UBI will just create a large class of degenerates ( see mouse utopia experiment) , the Automation Revolution should be used to give people the chance to work less hours in better conditions.
luddite. new jobs will come to take the old, they'll just be higher demanding, and more technical. this isn't even considering the likelihood that we will use technology to modify ourselves, so this fear mongering is pointless. communism is more viable in a "post-scarcity" future. good thing that future will never come, and that even if it did come, capitalism would still be 100 times better. :P
@@alexanderjames5689 The basic principles of Capitalism goes against a lot of interest groups. The government technically has little to no role in Capitalism. Zero role if you ask an Anarcho-Capitalist or only in extracting force and coercion from society if you ask an Objectivist. Government people want something to do, so the more time and people enter government the more they want to control the society and its economy. In a democracy it is by promising voters stuff. Government controls most of public education in Western society (which in itself is socialistic already). It is not malicious, but the curriculum is not there to teach you about Capitalism properly. The school system wants to create obedient citizens that are at least ok at joining wider society and the economy. Governments don't want to teach children that the State is actually a near useless and unnecessary institution. Governments control the police force. Government controls the banking sector through central banking institutions like the Federal Reserve (US). The existence of central banking is explicitly against free market/ Capitalism. Marxism is explicitly anti-Capitalist. His prophecy is Capitalism will regularly seed its own destruction (riots and economic downfalls) and Communism is the path forward for a better life. At least 10% of university professors self-describe as Marxists & the rest of universities are left-leaning in politics (Jonathan Haidt makes good research on this). Many professors are critical theorists, a post-modern approach to society that deconstructs common share values. The philosophers of Post-Modernism were Marxists of the Frankfurt school. The anti-Capitalist theory survives in critical theorists. Socialists are the practical applicators of Communism, so they don't like Capitalism either. Hollywood is very left-leaning right now. The arts and music institutions that teach people are usually temperamentally left-leaning (compassionate, empathetic, equality). Netflix and other streaming shows are businesses operating in very left-leaning cities like San Fransisco (Silicon Valley) and New York. So their movies are anti-Capitalist often. Even though Capitalism is the mechanism that distributes their movies the premises of almost every movie is that Capitalism = Greed = Bad. The religious groups borne from Christianity are suspicious of Capitalism. There are not a lot of Capitalist-principled institutions in Western society right now. Even Wall Street uses the government as welfare (corporate bailouts).
Capitalism can, if it's heavily regulated and restricted in regards to how and where it's allowed in our societies, at its very best still only be "a good enough bad thing," but due to the inherent nature of capitalism it's also always going to oppose the common good and interests of the people and will always strive towards tearing down the regulations and restrictions, making its way towards a fascist ideology where higher values are supplanted with materialistic and monetary values. Consumerism, corporatism, commercialism and similar things, though? Yeah, they cannot ever be anything but bad...
@@eavyeavy2864 But due to the rise of liberalism, many European nations are starting to allow privatized healthcare, which undermines the public healthcare system and, by extension, the health of its citizens. Primarily because, under a liberal system, healthcare becomes less about caring for the health of humans and more about making healthcare profitable, and this dehumanization spills over into the public healthcare sector as well. For example, the doctor who took care of my grandpa when he had a stroke and fell into a coma _reassuringly_ said to my mother, my grandpa's own daughter, that it was a pity that they couldn't find grandpa's medical records before they had managed to wake him up because, if they had, they naturally would've let him peacefully pass on. So yeah, lucky thing they _didn't_ find his medical records in time and could kill him off. Not least of all because the extra couple of months they gave him were enough for him to patch things up with my aunt... Seriously, liberalism and capitalism will be the ruin of all us... in fact, it IS the ruin of us all...
@@p4th0gen No, it's not. The primary reason why we often think it is the best option is because we're literally being made to think it is. Once again this is something that liberalism has spawned; systematically promoting the idea that capitalism is the best alternative until, eventually, the propaganda has shaped the way we think about society, making it hard for us to even consider things from a new, non-capitalism-supporting angle. There's this channel called "Philosphy Tube", maintained by a certain Oliver Thorne, and he made a series a while back titled "What Was Liberalism?" It's a pretty good series, each of the four episodes (plus two bonus episodes) being only about 10 minutes long, and I'd honestly recommend just about everyone to check it out at least once.
So for you, the ideal is a cave, a chunk of raw bear meat and two rocks for music. There seems little difference from Puritan Christianity and New Left early Marxism.
@@theinternetisnotreal1 Junk for anti-capitalists=anything beyond the dirt-poor, near-starvation poverty of 200,000 years prior to capitalism. Your death-worship is recognized. Capitalism is the only social system consistent w/the objective needs of mans life.
TeaParty1776 it’s only consistent with the needs of the powerful. to sustain the influx of unnecessary shit people are manipulated into buying, workers must be exploited, they must suffer, and no one seems to mention how the land and economies of poorer countries are ripped apart to maintain wealth in the western world. and the ideology of it is to constantly grow. it’s absurd how it could be defended, but I guess there is a class of people who truly enjoy it
@@punchgod Free will. I don't have an IPhone. No one person is manipulated into buying anything. Only your perceived self worth. That's sin. At it's base.
@@punchgod Yes, the West stole its scientific-industrial-capitalist civilization from primitive savages who had not invented rhe wheel. Marxism damages the minds power of focusing onto reality.
Work as mindless duty to God is not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You define by a non-essential. And production is the result of reason ,not faith.
Capitalism is merely a way of distributing resources. It's morally neutral. It exists within whatever framework of property rights a society deems moral. Its this framework of property rights that causes the problems, not capitalism. Smith makes the same point @ 3.45. He also hints in is book, The Wealth of Nations, the error in regarding natural resources as property, that is the root cause of all of our current problems.
I support the fact that others have their own ideas. I have faith that with the open discussion of competing ideas we will most often chose the better idea. I believe that the two ideologies competing right now are of idea control vs freedom of thought and expression. I chose freedom of thought and expression.
Back in my high school days, one professor handled copies of the book: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber during a lecture on the subject regarding Sociology in Religion. It was my first touch and though on how societies like those in capitalistic countries in the West originated around the common lives in Protestant communities.
I have heard that Smith's only use of the term invisible hand in Wealth of Nations was when talking about offshoring labor costs. He thought that capitalists would be prevented from doing this as if by an invisible hand by their concern for the health of their own nations' economies. He also said division of labor would make humans creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for humans to be. Also, according to a couple sources, Smith thought, along with his mentor David Hume, that sympathy for one's fellow participants in the market is what makes markets function efficiently.
Like with most videos, they aim not to cover the entirety of their chosen topics but instead focus on a few points which can fit into a manageable video. It is then down to the viewer to look for other material if so desired.
Great video, but I'm surprised at there being no mention of Milton Friedman's "neocapitalism"/shock doctrine, which goes well beyond the historic capitalism most people seem to think remains unchanged today. The Reagen-Thatcher-Pinochet structures of the 80s are far more radical than Adam Smith, and are especially interesting to study in comparison to the post-1929 Keynes welfare state era which was totally skipped in this video, and seems at least worth mentioning. But I understand how hard it is to fit the huge amount of things that could be said of our current world order in just a short UA-cam video. Great job, and thanks, as always! P.S: I'm from Chile, and here capitalism, neocapitalism, Freidman and Pinochet are all very touchy subjects. Look into the "Chilean Miracle" if you're curious about capitalism failing at it's finest!
You mean the Reagan Thatcher duo, not Nixon. Oh, by the way, I dont think Pinochet was a thinker (neither was Reagan). The true ideologues of Chile are Jaime Guzman and his catholic conservative predecesors, and the Chicago Boys which came from the libertarian thinking of Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman...
***** You're absolutely right, thanks for the fact-check. Pinochet was most definitely not a thinker, as you say, but it's just generally easier to refer to him as a figure in general than trying to explain the group of hugely talented but (in my mind) highly disagreeable people behind him.
Realm of the Unreel There's a few threads missing so far from the School of Life's vids-- maybe they'll be coming before long. A fundamental one to many modern capitalists is Bastiat and his argument, essentially, that the individual is supreme. He deems any concerns and rules society might have that aren't identical to concerns and rules of the individual as illegitimate, and is the basis not only of an entire branch of economics (the Austrian School), but also provides the right wing ruling class their necessary "moral justification for selfishness" as J. K. Gailbraith famously quoted. Bastiat's "Broken Window" makes sense to me (though I think it may be misapplied to criticize any form of stimulus), but his ideas regarding individual vs society I don't think add up, I'd like to see more coverage of him that isn't just from the Mises institute cheerleading team. I suppose an entire subseries on economics could be done, but it might be tricky-- like trying to include Ayn Rand as a philosopher, no matter what you say about them, if it isn't glowing support you'll be accused by their active fanbase of misinterpreting what they say...
Funny how I'm listening to a video, pointing out the flaws of capitalism on the internet in my smartphone through my wireless earbuds. I am reminded of the code "of course... But may be..."
I, too, enjoy uplifting programs about tractor production
How dare one not to enjoy such masterpieces!
Off with their heads!
@@matthewgillespie2835
I can hear the voice of that red queen from Alice in Wonderland.
Who doesn’t?
I am sure that North Korea still plays those programs on television if your interested in watching them
@@mrbeersinface bad sarcasm please try again
The mark of true intelligence
is not to understand a difficult thing,
but to make a difficult thing
understandable.?
I would say you definitely understand something better if you can make it intelligible to those less intelligent than oneself, but I don't think I don't grasp algebra because I can't teach it to my dog. Some things are just complex and simply beyond some people. It doesn't make someone less intelligent if they are able to grasp something extremely difficult but still unable to communicate that thing to someone else.
I would say, the first sentence is the first step, and the second sentence is the second step to mark the true intelligence.
The issue in this cute remark is the meaning of the word "understanding" A lot of people use that word but not a lot of people know what it really means. When I "understand" something how do you know I really did? What is this test to evaluate "understanding?" The meaning of "understanding" is ineffable and can only evaluated indirectly through behaviorist experiments. For instance one can erroneously say a child understands quadratic equations if they are able to apply the proper formula to find the value of X. However does this child really "understand" quadratic equations? Can they, for instance, describe the relationship between those equations and conic curves, or Kepler's laws or planetary motion?
Exactly my philosophy useful in developing countries
@Jay Bee non sequitur.
This guy talks so soothing like his wife is on the bed next to him, trying to sleep.
Or...child
I just imagine him telling her wife the history of capitalism as a bedtime story
Maybe that’s his secret
@@thomasdupont7186 thy name is aimiliar
@@thomasdupont7186 you came back to edit this, and it's still shit.
You had a chance, and you fucked it.
Money won't buy you happiness.....but it will make life comfortable
If you dont think money can buy happiness, you don't know where to shop. - Dan Peña
And degenerate
Cedrick J'mack Niddle no, then you are just not a degenerate materialist
@@ece5925 I don't really think money can buy happiness, but it can give you a sense of security and opportunity, which can facilitate happiness as long as it doesn't make you greedy and corrupt you (basically if your life doesn't revolve around it). Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily make you a degenerate materialist, it's how you spend or invest or donate that money. Bill Gates donates nearly half of his income to charity. I do believe that giving to other people, whether it be your time, money, or whatever else, plays a huge role in a person's happiness and self-worth.
Because they can buy things all people should be able to afford within reason. I mean, should anyone in this day and age have enough money to buy a planet?
"Every book is a remix of the dictionary."
-Leonardo da Vinci
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
- Abraham Lincoln
"It's not gae if it's Ricardo"
-Albert Einstein
"Being gay is kosher as long as you don't fuck a guy in the vagina."
- Jesus of Nazareth
That's just made up words
"Sex is the only manifestation that's human."
-Diogenes
Money is NOT the 'root of all evil'; The LOVE of Money is the 'root of all evil'. I got my degree in economics almost 40 years ago and have studied Economics my entire Life. No matter what Marx proclaimed, Money IS essential for an Economy to go beyond a Hunter/Gatherer society. Money simply makes "Barter" easier by putting a price on everything instead of trying to deal in mere trading of goods. Money can be "good" or "evil" depending on its use...
+randy109 you are right... one can argue that every concept is as evil as the people taking advantage of it... one question, since im no expert and i would like an opinion in that matter, why dont we use a credit system instead of monetary?!
+randy109 our use of a profit based, "growth" driven monetary system has become
one of the greatest destroyers of the natural world and sustainable
human values. The entire global economy requires "cyclical consumption"
to operate, which means that money must constantly be circulating. Thus,
new goods and services must be constantly introduced regardless of the
state of the environment and actual human necessity. This "perpetual"
approach has a fatal flaw for resources as we know it are simply not
infinite. Resources are finite and the Earth is essentially a closed
system. To assume the need for constant consumption to keep people
employed and hence the market system going is eco-cidal on a finite
planet. The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically
preserve and create efficiency. The system today demands the opposite.
+randy109 No, ignorance is the root of all evil.
+randy109 There has existed societies that have fared well without money.
Erik Le Blanc Pleym now it is prey to societies with money. it's on a dinner plate.
Subjects of Economics and Philosophy should be compulsory right from the early age classes... It is very important to educate the young about what is happening around us and why!
the problem is that, in the UK, the teachers wouldn't look any further than Das Kapital, Maynard Keynes, Marx, Gramsci, and Foucault.
@@CIMAmotor same problem everywhere
Right?
Philosophy is too abstract before university because students dont have the experience to connect to philosophy and their minds are not fully developed. Students need less abstract applications of philosophy, ie, science, history, math, literature.
Marva Collins Way-Marva Collins
Teaching Johnny To Think-..... ........Leonard Peikoff
I think system just want worker to do their job meet metric by the end of month. They want good employees.
They don't want intellectual to understand whole process (the big picture).
"Why am I speaking English" - Vladimir Putin
@Chris Sain Prices go down as well as up 🤷♂️
@Tenebris Lupus ye he was a kgb agent tf do we expect
"Capitalism is when iPhone" -Adam Smith
Wut
hahaha ....next IPhone charger sold separately lol haha
@@bsurajraju
Which is why we have the saying _caveat emptor_ - let the buyer beware. Buying Apple today is a fools errand. They're way too much into their walled garden philosophy.
LoL
communism is when your power shuts down at 9 pm and you go cry to your mommy cause you had no idea that was also a part of communism. indoctrinated clown
How can I say this most plainly? These videos are so good and so to the point... that it hurts. It's like it can be felt.
+oberstul except that the dutch east indian company was not mentioned... but whatever.
+The School of Life PLEASE STOP THE PAIN!!!!! I BEG OF YOUUUU!!!!
Not really. They didn't even bring up Ayn Rand. But that would hurt their socialist agenda.
The misconception these socialist philosophers have is they think goods being successful being on the free market represent their philosophically objective value. They do not. The works of Adam Smith will always be of more philosophically objective value than of Dance Moms.
However, the success of goods on the free market represent their Socially Objective Value. This means their value to the user in the context of their life. Another example, an airplane is of greater philosophically technical achievement than a bicycle. But if your transportation needs do not exceed the needs of a bicycle than why would you buy an airplane even if you had the money?
Another example. Lipstick is of less philosophically objective value than a microscope. But lipsticks socially objective value is greater to the Starbucks barista whose difference of having lipstick or not might be the difference between confidence or shame.
However, this does not mean that the socially objective value of a product is completely subjective. If a barista has enough money for lipstick but did not budget enough money for a doctor to use a microscope for a medical exam, she learns a better way of budgeting. The free market serves as a teacher.
I propose that Capitalism is not only the most rational social system, but the most moral social system as well. It is only system that protects individual rights.
I've always wanted to form a band and call it Jesus and the money lender's
Just do it. I am looking forward to listen to the first songs 😀
@@souranis bad credit. Can't get a lone from the money lenders
@@brettwyatt7165 loan*
I’d expect the songs to be calling out commercialization of religion
*lenders
“CAPITALISM”
-Adam smith, wealth of nations
Karl Marx coined "Capitalism". Adam Smith preferred “commercial society.”
@Kaushik Kurudi no I’m not Gandhi. That’s not someone else.
you summarize the whole book of adam smith.
How is capitalism immoral if it focuses on producing what people want? It's a fair and honest market.
Bigdawgphilleep It's up to a person what kind of path he decides to take in his life. Taking one aimed towards becoming a businessman yourself is not easier than the road of becoming asomeone's employee. But in the end capitalism creates work for everyone and is aimed to please society's demands. What better system would you propose? I'd say that the real issue is that people just have tendency of getting pampered, life is just not as easy as a fairy tale.
Bigdawgphilleep Excuse me for my ignorance, but about what political favors are you talking about?
Using life as commodity, disposing when not needed anymore - what are you talking about, assasinating employees after they can't do the work anymore? I think you're just exaggerating what happens when someone gets to point of getting fired from his job. In which way do you see it as "disposal"? More like something what happens when business is doing terribly to point that there is no other choice but to start cutting expenses as much as possible.
Could you enlighten me also about how does capitalism kills those refusing to participate in it?
+pRopaaNS
1) It's up to a person what kind of path he decides to take in his life: But a person's path is also decided by the wealth of that person's parents, the country in which they were born, the gender and race they are, and a whole host of other variables. Capitalism does not by any means makes things 'fair.'
2) Capitalism creates work for everyone: That's not a good thing. Work for the vast majority of those who live in the capitalist world is dull, repetitive, and uncreative. A better system would give wealth straight to the people without such soul-crushing demands - we certainly have enough resources and automation to do so, especially since we could eliminate useless work that creates no real value, yet is maintained because of the capitalist-created, arbitrary connection between labour and the right to eat and sleep under a roof.
3) Capitalism is aimed to please society's demands: Only to the extent that pleasing these demands is profitable for the capitalist. Its primary purpose is to make profit for the capitalist.
4) Life is just not as easy as a fairy tale: You're not wrong. But it's not a valid ethical judgement because it says IS, not SHOULD. We have enough resources and our production is automated sufficiently to provide the entire world with a much higher standard of living than most experience right now, so why should we shackle ourselves to what IS? Certainly capitalists did not have qualms about overturning feudalism because "that's just the way it IS." If humanity needs hardship, why shouldn't we return to a hunter-gatherer way of life? And why don't we engineer hardship in a way such that people have to give their consent to experience it, rather than have poverty and wage slavery forced upon them?
+pRopaaNS It's like democracy, most people want it, but most are too stupid for the system.
***** 1) I disagree. Indeed people around influences a person and perhabs in many cases strives him to take certain paths in his life, but in the end that person decides himself, even if he doesn't realize that. Taking a path carved for you by others is still your path and your choice, because too much pressure can make a person to decide otherwise and refuse that path people keep pushing him for.
2) The dull boring work is also the easiest one to do. To get more exciting and interesting work better education is neccesary. Many people might not be all there for carving their future when going to school and university but be forced there by people around them, but in the end it's their choice whenever to take studies seriously or not and become a routhine worker in some factory.
3) Capitalist don't get all of the profit in his own pocket. All of the profit made by company must be invested to further expand and improve the comapny, stuffing the money in your own pocket is illegal addording to law. He can only give himself money what he formalizes as his own salary.
4) I don't disagree, but I don't like when people complains an stays negative in face of having great opportunities and resources. Negativity is useful to extent of keeping expectations in the right place, so you can apprechiate when things go better than expected. Expanding negativity towards your outwards view on the world while keeping expectactions overly positive is not going to end well for you. Never beign satisfied, nothing is as good as you'd like it to be.. Why do you have to torture yourself? I don't. I think that the life is fine, because the reality is better than my expectatctions inside. That's why I say that life is not fairy tale, to remind myself that I'm not taking an acid trip and to place my feet on reality as it is.
Jesus Christ was upset with the merchants because they were using "His church" as a market place. He wasn't upset with them conducting business, but only where they were conducting it. "My house shall be called a house of prayer." Matthew 21:13
right!
I have a tiny guess that you guys probably are Republicans :)
Krunk Classic lol, does it matter? Democrats or republicans, don't we just want to state facts?
Solomon Chang: I just find it funny how the majority of American Christians support the Republican party like they're in some sort of denial of who and what Jesus really represented. That was more my point to it :)
Krunk Classic so what do you think Jesus represented?
Who tf is this wide eyed guy he keeps showing he’s scaring the shit out of me.
Hahahaha X”D
Hahahahahahaha
What are you on about?
@@yoyoman_blue6485 the guy in 5:35
I think Samuel Pickwick, a character from one of Charles Dickens' books.
"Quote that makes the opposing side look stupid"
-Commentor's preferred Politician/Philosopher
I always thought that particular Politician/Philosopher to be overly pedantic, pestiferous, and verbose in a supercilious way, personally.
That's so true, the opposing side is so stupid and mean for supporting this ideology, as they believe it will enhance and prosper the lives of his family and community 😂😂😂
So instead of having compassionate conversation with them, i will make both of us suffer in a cycle of fighting 🧠
I needed to read this lol
a short answer to: What is confirmation bias? :)
*Insert George Orwell quote here*
-Argument won
Disappointed that there was no mention of Keynes, Hayek, or Friedman. You can't quite summarize fully the development of capitalism without mentioning the works of these economists and their applications by world leaders.
Unfortunately, whoever makes these videos doesn't have any grasp of capitalism.
He's a mediocre IGNORANT so don't care about it....
>Friedman
oh no no no....
>chile
WHEEEEEEZZEEE
@@FR0980Y because this specific video doesn't contain all of what capitalism is. There's a reason they have OTHER videos.
@@marka3122
Perhaps you're correct. I just rewatched the video and my assessment wasn't completely accurate. It's not so much their knowledge of capitalism that's lacking. My issue is more with the implications the video makes. The problems that it details, and many others espouse, also happen to be the very reason why capitalism is so successful. They can't be divorced from each other.
The experimental nature of capitalism is precisely why it works. No one can really predict whether something like smart watches will be a revolutionary invention until it's tried in the market. Turns out that they aren't really all that useful but hindsight is 20/20. I was alive when home computers were considered by people, who pretended to be in the know, to be just a fad that would die out soon. Nothing of any real practical use. Had central planners control over what products and services could be offered to the masses, we might live in a completely different world.
As for child labor, harsh working conditions and "exploitation of labor", many people of today, yesterday and forever socialists, always make the mistake of looking at the past through the rose-colored lens of the modern day. They also mistakenly view events as snapshots in time as opposed to its full context. Slavery was an institution from the beginning of time until very recently. Child labor also always existed as well. The wealth creation and economic gains of capitalism is the one and only reason why these things have been removed from society. If children still needed to work in order for people to not starve to death, no one would think twice about it. It's only when we became wealthy enough that there was virtually no place for children in the workforce that we got rid of it. Many nations still haven't reached that point yet but they will soon. And when they do, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they do the same exact thing we did: outlaw child labor. Unless the world totally fraks things up, we'll see a world without legal child labor very soon (50-100 years).
Freedom and capitalism is and has quickly improved the world. We would be so much worse off without them. I just hope that we keep moving forward.
I am really enjoying these films. Thank you so much for putting them together. I do have a request, though. It would be so helpful if you all could include subtitles of the scripts that are being read. The automated closed captioning that UA-cam provides is not always accurate. As an educator, I can say that being able to read and watch at the same time would be a real enhancement to this curriculum for my students and me, making it easier to commit names and terms to memory without having to stop and look them all up as each film plays.
+The School of Life I want to add also once you have subs in english the next step is to have it in other lengages.
I'm from Argentina (spanish speaking) and it would be very helpful because most of the people don't know english and also it would be easier even if you know.
Thanks for your videos. they are very helpful.
This video was biased and wrong in so many ways. It is amazing you are so ignorant.
Capitalism video: has 2.5 million views
Communism video: has 6.7 million views
Cus commies are more ideological
@@shamusson and your not clearly lol
@@ghastlyghandi4301 sure am
That’s a tragedy
Hey I can't seem to find the communism one - would you mind sharing the link? Much appreciated!
"if u complain about being poor, just find a way to become not poor" carl marks (Karl Marx's American cousin)
yeeter, right-on but Marx's issue with capitalism was with time, it would save, enrich and eventually impoverish workers. The firsts two industrial revolutions are good examples, as well as the 80's for the West who's working class used debt (money lenders) to maintain their quality of life. Brexit and then Trump is 2016 version. When democracy falls in the West, will Karl have the last laugh?
@M33ble Brexit for the people by the people? The promises that won those votes came to as much fruition as repealing Obama Care, building the Wall, getting tough on China etc.... which all led to catastrophic economic losses. Outside the EU, who exactly was Britain going to trade its surplus output with, and if they were allowed to trade within the EU, at what additional costs? As a small business exporter (multinationals just borrow money made out of thin air (The Fed)), would those additional costs make you noncompetitive in nearly all foreign markets? The icing on the cake is these state crippling issues have yet to be resolved on either side of the pond. Are we getting the picture that low info voters can be dangerous to Democracy? Better yet, there is a 2500 year book that can explain it much better: "The Republic" by Plato.
Exactly bro. Just don't be poor, it's that easy.
As the most intelluctually talented philosopher of the western world, Ben 'The Destroyer' Shapiro debunks a common concern raised by climate activists. "Where will I live when the sea levels rise and my house gets flooded?" Ben 'The Destroyer' Shapiro solves, in his answer, the easy solution not only to this particular problem but also every single complaign about capitalism and poverty in general.
Ben 'Mega-Brain' Shapiro states "You don't think the people will simply sell their houses if the sea level rise?" And I think that this can be generalised further:
Why don't poor people don't just sell stuff, open up a business or get good education so they can have a good job? It's honestly that easy!
I think it is because they actually 'like' to be poor. They don't do shit about it, because, if they would become wealthy, it would prove that capitalism is in fact the single best ideology on our planet. They, however, want to keep their revolutionary beliefs and leftist ideals, and will also for that reason, in fact, stay poor and throw their lifes away.
Checkmate.
@@lulla8312 lol thats the only argument any libtard neckbeard communists have against Ben shapiro.
@@lulla8312 so people with wealth doesn't deserve their wealth?? they were just too lucky risking their money and working on their businesses for soo long. it is not easy to get wealthy but capitalism makes it that if u work hard enough u will make it
7:30 I didn't wake up this morning expecting to see naked communist beach volleyball, yet here we are
lmao!! ikr
yup.
Ew I thought the guy in the front was wearing pants
Bruh
Brah! That was the funniest part. I had to pause it. I was like “what hell”. Lol. They promise good time (in my Russian voice).
To anybody who is not blindly communist, Marxist, capitalist, etc. but does not exclude those viewpoints either, this makes a lot of sense.
A pity all the comments seem to be under those persuasions.
Yeah unfortunately you are often labelled as a communist or a Marxist if you don't blindly follow capitalism
+Ian Blasso Most people cannot differentiate between criticism and rejection
A lot of people think that their systems are all one or all another without realising just how blended they can get. One might live in a highly capitalistic society, but if you pay taxes that keep the street lights on or the get the bins collected, well, you've got elements of socialism in your country. The problems with each system are mostly due to the depth of their implementation, not just implementing them at all.
Im a communist
"Uplifting television programs about tractor production." - I let out a hardy laugh at that line. xD
😂
pigslave3 It's the original "How it's Made"
it sounds about as exciting as American midwestern and southern culture
what?
"keeping up with the Kardashians" is the real deal
People say americans don't understand communism and socialism and there's a lot of truth in that but the same is true for capitalism. A lot of people see the world we live in today and use that as their basis for capitalism and give you some mundane generic description of it like "meh pick yourself up by your boot straps" or "meh rich get richer poor get poorer".
Responses to the two "flaws" in the video:
Flaw 1: Capitalist countries should not force labor (as mentioned in the video), so if the pay does not compensate for the work and conditions then the workers should quit which would cause the price of labor to increase for that company. If people are willing to work for less, then the positions will be filled and goods will be cheaper in competitive markets.
Flaw 2: If people are spending their resources on trinkets then it must have value to them, why should a government deny it?
Flaw 1: I think you're right, that generally people are not forced to work and that job opportunities, even low-paying ones, are better than no opportunity at all. I think what irks workers is seeing the fruits of their labour being sold for dozens if not hundreds of times more than they're being paid for their labour. Now, you might say that there's no coercion or trickery in that, after all, they should have known that going in but the fact remains that people will feel unjustly treated even if those feelings aren't strictly rational. The central point is that extreme inequality makes people feel like the system is unfair. Now, you might say that's irrational, but I'd say to you that treating highly evolved apes like strictly rational creatures is irrational. If you zoom out a lot, here's what people see: extremely low-paid workers manufacturing the very items that are being sold to make record-breaking profits. When viewed from this height I think it's easy to understand why people have problems.
Flaw 2: I think I see the same problem in this flaw as in the previous one: again, you seem to want treat people as though they were rational agents. If people want to spend their money on heroin, why not? If people want to spend their money on unhealthy sugary/salty/fatty foods, why not? If people want to spend their money on superficialities made to cover-up their physical flaws, then why not? Expensive cars to buttress their masculinity? Rare earth gems to heal their spirit? The point is that if you raise people in an environment where distractions, unhealthy foods, addictive substances, and psychological crutches are prevalent you're going to get a bunch of fat addicted sickly people with tons of psychological issues (that sounds like a pretty accurate description of many people in the west, no?). Now, SOME of those people might still have enough self-control and reason to make it through unscathed, but they will increasingly be the minority. If people were taught self-control and emotional-regulation in school then maybe I'd be ok with a world like that, but as it is, they're not. And huge corporations know it. They know our insecurities. They know our cravings. They know what makes us feel comfort and anger, and many of them are without qualms in targeting those human qualities to turn a profit.
I think it's hard to know "what's good for us" and I hate the idea of some committee of self-important people deciding what's best for all us stupid apes. I definitely think that should be avoided, but on the other hand it's obvious to me that politicians and corporations understand human nature so well these days that they're able to use our shortcomings to their benefit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think the system should treat people like they're rational and free - they're not. We're highly emotional and irrational creatures with a tendency to make mistakes, a limited capacity to understand, and subject to all sorts of biases. Why not have a system that brings out the best in us, rather than exploit the worst in us?
He's spitting straight fax
@@janpetrykowski4794 Yes, but bringing out the "best in us" was covered in the video. It failed because people wanted coffee... It will always fail because people will always want coffee and chips and stuff like that. The system shouldn't mandate what we can buy. It should help us understand and become less emotional and irrational creatures as you said. There is no other way. Keeping all these shortcomings and somehow still living in a healthy world can't be done. No government can force that. It can only show us the path we have to take ourselves. We have to change by our own will. The Government can't force it. It can try, but it can't work.
7:02 - I agree with the video, but like, wasn't Venice built on proto-capitalism? That city grew filthy rich from being a vital tradeing post between western Europe and the East
Yes but at that point in time, the capitalism that was being practiced in Venice did not involve any factories and certainly not to the extent of the UK at that time.
@fabian michelsson Venice was brought up as an example of what that one guy thought money should be spent on instead of frivolous tchotchke. The channel isn't a detractor or critic, its doing a *history* of capitalism. Pretty defensive there (1930) what do you have to be (2008) so defensive about?
Venice was built on being terrified of the Huns.
No, Venice was not built on proto-capitalism. Proto-capitalism started in Great Britain with agrarian capitalism which was precipitated by Locke’s new definition of private property and the creation of vast spaces of enclosures which destroyed the commons (lands for common use) upon which much of the peasant class required to farm and hunt. Renaissance Florence and Venice were not proto-capitalist economies.
@fabian michelsson
Capitalism is not the natural culmination of history. Mercantilism is not an early form of capitalism. There are no early forms of capitalism.
Capitalism represents a historically specific social form and a historic rupture with earlier forms.
“Vastly successful commercial city-states like Florence [and Venice] did not give rise to capitalism, while capitalism did emerge in England, whose cities, in the context of a precociously centralized monarchical state, were arguably among the least autonomous in Europe.” -Ellen Meiksins Wood
“The critical factor in the divergence of capitalism from all other forms of ‘commercial society’ was the development of certain social property relations that generated market imperatives and capitalist ‘laws of motion’, which imposed themselves on production. The great non-capitalist commercial powers had producing classes and especially peasants who remained in possession of their means of subsistence, and land in particular. They were ruled and exploited by dominant classes and states that relied on ‘extra-economic’ appropriation or ‘politically constituted property’ of various kinds. These great civilizations were not systematically subjected to the pressures of competitive production and profit-maximization, the compulsion to reinvest surpluses, and the relentless need to improve labour-productivity associated with capitalism.” -Ellen Meiksins Wood
“Capitalism is a system in which goods and services, down to the most basic necessities of life, are produced for profitable exchange, where even human labour-power is a commodity for sale in the market, and where all economic actors are dependent on the market. This is true not only of workers, who must sell their labour-power for a wage, but also of capitalists, who depend on the market to buy their inputs, including labour-power, and to sell their output for profit. Capitalism differs from other social forms because producers depend on the market for access to the means of production (unlike, for instance, peasants, who remain in direct, non-market possession of land); while appropriators cannot rely on ‘extra-economic’ powers of appropriation by means of direct coercion - such as the military, political, and judicial powers that enable feudal lords to extract surplus labour from peasants - but must depend on the purely ‘economic’ mechanisms of the market. ” Ellen Meiksins Wood, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View
Karl Marx advocated for communism, but wrote a lot on capitalism more than anyone, there is no way you talk about capitalism without mentioning Karl Marx.
He wrote about the bourgeois, while acting like one himself
@@stroodlepup how in any manner was Karl Marx one of the bourgeois . he lived in dept until a communist bourgeois helped him out . but in no other manner was he a traitor to his own class .
Ali Al Rida Hammoud And even if he was a part of the bourgeois, that doesn’t invalidate his criticisms against the system. You can criticize an oppressive system even if you’re in a position to benefit, something right wingers don’t understand
@@stroodlepup You a full of... In what way he was acting like a bourgeois?! 🙄
Donn Jeferson Atienza
Consider free education to relearn history
*But wait, free education is a idea created by Karl Marx*
“Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
#liberalism
Sounds like the inverse of "Our needs are our wants".
Do what you want with your money Frank but you won't last longer than 3 days without water
Watching this great lesson, I remembered poor Citizen Kane...Friends who haven't seen it yet, indeed really should. Some say it is the best movie of all times. Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater wrote a book called Amador for his 15 year old son, to teach him Ethics and there he talks about the movie:
"Citizen Kane devoted many years to selling all his people so that he could buy all his things; and at the end of his life he realizes that if he could he would trade in his palace full of expensive possessions for the one humble object- an old sled- that reminded him of a certain person, namely, himself, before he gave himself up to buying and selling , when he preferred loving and being loved".
You may think it is an innocent and harmless thing to buy all that stuff you don't need. But indeed it is a moral obligation to analyse yourself everytime thinking " what do I want this for" ?? Frankly I think no one would ever buy a Vuitton bag for 2.000 euros, if they were not allowed to show it to anybody! It is all about asking for attention, recognition and being loved, but there are many other, healthier ways for it!
Thank you. Lovely comment
@@vexling111 Hello Casper. Thank you for reading! Stay safe :- )
"When the course of civilization takes an unexpected turn we naturally blame anything but ourselves"
- F. A. Hayek
well, gee, I guess the 2008 crash of Wall Street and financial crisis is my fault then. Fuck Hayek
@@DKazzix the 2008 crash of Wall Street and financial crisis was caused by government investment in non-sustainable markets, which leads to economic booms at first and then extreme busts at the end.
@@mr.e2962 Yeah nothing to do with how capitalism has literally always worked.... governments, oligopolies or monopolies etc. are everywhere and yet idiot libertarians pretend there's ever been or ever will be a "free" market. Right next to the slave markets I suppose...
@@0NoFreeWill0 you do understand that goverment involvement is the basis of socialism though...
@@geol5448 Common ownership of the means of production is socialism. Government involvements in markets are like, the actual basis of capitalism even existing. Capitalism and the modern industrial nation-state are basically coextensive. If the government launching foreign wars to secure energy resources and cheap labor (slaves, oil, etc.) wasn't happening capitalism would cease to function. Not to mention the primitive accumulation (stealing land) that was supported by the government that got everything started.
So in short: if we ditch capitalism, I won't be able to watch Celebrity Body Issues anymore?
Yep, only state propaganda about how the state knows best ... And tractors
@@PysKa.512 cringe
I would love that
No...if we ditch capitalism you will starve. But he fails to make that point.
In Capitalism there is only the owner and the Employee.
Ultimately, the 'Employee' makes the products, takes those products to the market, sells the same products, he made, to himself and finally he pays a fee known as Profit to some 'Owner' for a permission to own the same products he made and sold to himself.
The owner gets to collect profit for doing nothing.....and many call that 'earning' instead of 'taking'.
“…the oppression of the poor must always establish the monopoly of the rich, who by engrossing the whole trade to themselves will be able to make very large profits… the rate of profit is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.” An Enquiry Into The Nature And Causes of The Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith 1858
Damn, thank you for this quote.
@KAOS NATION In Germany, we refer to what you are proposing as 'Social Democracy' and it's embedded in our constitution.
monopoly its not the name,because monopoly cant exist in a free market, byou mean Big companies, that also means faster production and lower cost, which means lower prices so actually it helps people, they are saving money that now they can spend in some other product helping another shop to grow.
And the only way monopoly exist is because of the state and its regulations that always are better for minorities. with free markets, monopolys doesnt exist, its just how everything evolve, and if you think about it "monopolys" or big companies are the one that give us Computers and vaccinations, also industrial revolution. So Capitalism is the way the human keeps evolving, now using his mind to keep the wheel spining.
@KAOS NATION you drank the american capitalist koolaid . I suggest you read the writings of the man who actually first coined the word in an economic treatise - Marx, and stop listening to right wing propaganda which you have done a great job of explaining.
Capitalism has always been an oppressive system, commerce is the free market.
KAOS NATION
Can you explain what is pure capitalism?
You mean a market without regulation and without politics?
Like when URSS switch to capitalism you know how that turn?
Their worse economical crisis, mafia was everywhere and control the whole market.
"Capitalism" started to work only when government started to implement regulations.
And I like how you refer the early 1900’ saying it was its purest form of capitalism while ending up with its worst financial crisis ever. Kinda fail
And don’t forget that it’s actually because of the two world war that USA (and all the other to this very day) is that much of a super power
Why a minimum wage and not a maximum one. Why minimum annual earnings (poverty line) and not a maximum of annual earnings (line of unethical wealth) ? Are resources infinite and inexhaustible ? Or does trickle down economics really work?
because that’s communism
Exactly. Abundance not scarcity. Trickle UP economics.
Human-centered capitalism that puts people before profits, always.
And include everyone in a healthy econ-system. Those who are retired, disabled, going to school full-time, stay-at-home moms, artists, basically all the "others" whose lives we assign no value, or as only having potential value, which wil be evident once they are willing to exploit themselves serving food to strangers for $7/hour. It is a slap in the face, bringing someone food for starvation wages. "THAT is all you are worth woman, now smile and make nice if you want this two dollar tip."
The good news is: UBI. We don't all have to contribute and receive value in the same way. Andrew Yang's book explains it better than I can, based on facts and common sense: "The War on Normal People." Elon Musk, Billl Gates, MLK Jr all came out in public support of UBI.
I agree. If there is a minimum wage there should be a maximum wage.
Otherwise dont put any limits or "requirements" on wage.
@@imagin.e.ternity minimum wage is essential if we are not to go back to slavery. But no maximum yearly earnings, in capitalism (=that is never ending accumulation of capital in $ and commodities) leads to the "1% owning 50/60/80/90% (i don't really know the numbers) of global wealth" phenomenon
The problem is it's easier to prove someone is getting a minimum wage, and harder to prove someone has exceeded a maximum wage. Look at Putin. He's rumored to be worth tends of billions of dollars that are undisclosed. Unfortunately, what probably would happen is politicians + intelligence agencies would have immense power over the world's wealth (likely becoming the richest people in their nations), and that effect would likely be worse than investment-capitalism.
Communism video: capitalism bad
Capitalism video: capitalism bad
Ikr the bias is real
@@DanielNyong becoz capitalism is BAD
Truth be truth
@@Sooyush capitalism is bad? Lol
Says the guy using UA-cam
On his android/apple phone
With picture in his designer clothes...
What a hypocrite.
If you want socialim or communism go ahead and donate your salary to the government. You can do it on the treasury website.
@@Jack-xy4fy Capitalism is selling of innovation, not creation. All the sciences weren't developed for a grant money. There's a thing called passion. I agree communism is so ideal that it cuts out necessities, which lack innovation. But not passion. So, capitalism is like having a gun to your head to get your work done, while communism says, take your time, live your life.
I hope you'll read to respond not react.
And by the way, Trump got impeached.
@@Sooyush Suyash K Kishore firstly, I know what capitalism is, so why did you explain it to me? At what point did I mention inventing anything? You still bought expensive products rather than buying a cheap locally made item, so you yourself are reaping the benefits of capitalism whilst saying its "bad"... That is why you are a hypocrite.
Secondly if the iPhone was made for passion then why are apple multibillionaires and why are they not producing new innovations and rather just sticking other people's new innovations on their product... Oh that's right because it has nothing to do with passion and everything to do with keeping the market share..
Take your time, live your life? Lol and if everyone does that then their is no innovation, just look at how little innovation comes from communist countries compared to capitalist.
Finally I'm not American, so your ignorance couldn't be more clear than right now when you not only assume I'm a trump supporter, but assumed I'm American and also assumed that I'd even give a shit what you say about him.
...hillary clinton is nothing more than Bill clintons seamen recepticle and Obama only got into office because he is black and people felt obligated to vote for him to feel less guilty about being white in America 🤷♂️
The beauty of capitalism is that you always have a choice. Just because products are cheap and potentially unhealthy for instance, does not mean you are forced to purchase those products. I'm currently commenting using a 5-year-old smartphone and checking the time on my $18 Casio digital watch with a 10-year battery that I don't plan on changing for another 9 years. Companies will always try to market things to people that they do not need. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the choice as to whether or not they partake in those purchases. I've heard the argument a million times that because a company makes something that people think they need then it is the evil capitalists forcing individuals to buy those things and forcing people into slavery to produce them. In a capitalist system, everything is based on choice. The choice to purchase, the choice to produce, and the choice to own one's own labor and be compensated at a rate mutually agreed upon by the employer and the laborer.
You seem to live in a fantastic world
Best comment I've read on this video
WHen capitalists control the entire information sphere and can deploy billion of dollars to push you towards their product, choice isn't really there
Incredible production and such easy narration to enjoy listening to. Thank you for all your time on this.
This was a terrible video, you must not know much about history. This video claims to be a history of capitalism and it did nothing to tell that history. It didn't mention how civilization transitioned thru various economies as it transitioned thru various methods of organizing a nation state.
Pretty good video but you're taking Jesus way out of context. He was mad at the money changers (retailers) for doing business in the temple, because it "was a house of prayer". If you seek to show Jesus was against capitalism, you'll need to dig a little deeper.
It's pretty easy to get a camel through the eye of a needle, so I bet all kinds of rich men are getting into heaven. Spend your life in pursuit of the root of all evil what could go wrong? The Bible has an opinion on money and chasing it. The vows of poverty didn't come out of nothing.
Jesus was the same as Snow White, a fictional character.
@@dddux Irrelevant to the OP's comment.
@@TheGroovyJones and what about the parable of the gold coins? A clear instruction from jesus to invest your money into something profitable like a business.
By the way the bible say THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Not money itself. God made King Solomon one of the richest people that ever lived.
God never says money is bad just don't love it.
@@vinuzo9548 You understand parables are metaphors, right? It's a message about stewardship for the gifts and graces of god, like our land and rivers and climate, not instructions to invest money. Jesus is the ultimate communist.
Someone's hungry? Feed them. Cold? Clothe them. Sick? Heal them. Not if they can afford it in money, not at a certain level of profit, just take care of your fellow people on Earth. The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others what makes you lots of gold."
No mention how land was carved up to be given to private owners?
laurence. S nope, in america during the great migration you just found land and built your house, i think you can still do that in mexico.
as for the means of production crap, that would be the 2 hands and feet you were given
BUBBLEGUM GUN was i talking about america?
laurence. S yup when america went west you could set yourself where you wanted, the government didn't cut up land and gave it out.
maybe places like texas still do that.
BUBBLEGUM GUN i think you misunderstood my reply. I will state again, i wasnt talking specifically about america.
laurence. S idk where you live m8,
Money won't bring you happiness...... but COFFEEEEE WILLLL DOOOOOO
U need money to buy the coffee though
Imagine writing a book so influential it changes the course of history
So many books are like that outside of economic literatures
@@inigobantok1579 tell us a few, perhaps we can read them
@@jaidevphadke9293 peppa pig's countdown to bedtime
@@jaidevphadke9293 the last wish
@@jaidevphadke9293 the story about aliens I wrote when I was 6
I believe in spending in things that are actually worth the cost. Mostly in things that will surely be handy in present as well as in the future. Thanks for teaching me this wonderful lesson.
when water cost more then beer, soda and soon milkshakes
I never even noticed
A true test of darwinism
Darwinism is expecting the wrong answers & then coming forth thinking you have something
Yeah I'm surprised to find that out! Potable water isn't available to drink freely out of taps here, but water is always the cheapest drink you can get anywhere! It's crazy to think how soda is somehow cheaper than plain water.
I guess that depends on where you live? Potable tap water is free where I live in the United States. Bottles of water are 2/ $1.59 at convenience stores.
loved it... so well explained... i love the editor... nobody talks about him! i know the narrator has a very soothing voice... but this team is briliiant... i love this channel... \m/
I wonder how much money they put into the marketing machinery to promote their channel against the sea of competition in this gladiator arena.
Nice…sentence…structure…
East Germans: Okay with secret police, oppressive Tankie regime, inefficient planned economy, and a lack of basic liberties we take for granted.
Also East Germans: THE COFFEE'S GONE, LET'S RIOT!!!!
There is a staggeringly important lesson nested inside that... Complicated, bitter but obscure truths can and will endure in the heart of the common populace, but once enough people can't get whatever it is they consider important, then the shit truly hits the fan.
They also did women’s rights, free childcare and recycled cars.
@@dirkscott5410 Sure, I never claimed the totalitarian regimes running the communist bloc countries were the epitomy of evil. But I strongly disagree with any government that censors people who speak against the interests of the state.
caffeine is a hell of a drug
That's how it goes, people will take it and take it, endure the systemic decay and the worsening of the overall conditions, until one day something trivial like coffee or something trite in comparison to the overall issues that people aren't reacting to, will spark a volcanic eruption of dissent.
amazing that in almost a quarter of an hour - a 5 secon definition of capitalism was avoided - bravo
Its an appeal to emotion. See Ayn Rand's, _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, for a principled, systematic view, w/definitions.
...and how Fuedalism and merchantilism were completely avoided. Those are critical policies that transcends the reasons for Capitalism.
@Renegade Red from a practical (non-theoretical) point of view, you just defined communism.
@@ArthurBrooklyn you literally dont know what communism is then lol
@Renegade Red not true
Jesus was not against capitalism! He was against the blasphemy against a place of worship
Presuming to know Jesus? How do we know he wasn't against Exploitation and Extortion ... two tenets of unregulated Capitalism.
DUDAH You really blame impoverished parents rather than the system? They have to put food on the table.
@DUDAH thank you!!! Someone said it. Also let's not forget how immoral the other option is. Socialism is theft. Theft was never advocated by jesus. Socialism is theft because it forcefully takes money or even private property from one person and gives it to someone who had not worked for it in the name of "equality". That's just theft, no other way of looking at it, it's theft and stealing is a sin.
@@omkhetz3798 Alright guys, you really wanna go? Okay... 1) I grew up in the service economy. I've worked in Hollywood, I've seen the lifestyle of the .01%, the billionaire class. Below them, an invisible majority live in poverty. I can safely say that the USA is a third-world country, with a first-world aristocratic class. Hollywood and the media industry are the marketing campaign to hide these truths from the rest of society. 2) Yuppies do not have it "easy" when they spend their entire life in debt slavery, paying off loans, going bankrupt from medical emergencies. Only the wealthy have it easy in America. 3) @DUDAH You can only tell someone they "don't know economics" if you understand the fundamentals of capital, labor, use value, exchange value, surplus value, artificial scarcity, etc., better than others. Based on your comment, I'm doubtful of that, but maybe you can change my mind. 4) The "socialism is theft" claim just demonstrates an embarrassing lack of historical understanding. In 1797, Thomas Paine wrote "Agrarian Justice." Be careful... if you guys read it, your brains might explode when you realize that one of America's most influential founding fathers during the Revolutionary War was, by your standards, a "socialist."
@@AlessioMorello anecdotal opinion is invalid. First of all, the USA has better wages, better standard of living, better quality of healthcare, low prices for great products, most businesses, most amount of millionaires and the most innovation on earth. Your anecdotal evidence shows the incompetence of the liberal Californian government with its over regulation, high taxes and bad social programs. California is the most Socialist state in America except maybe for new York or Vermont. It shows how Socialism doesn't work. Compare California it the much more free market freedom loving texas, both have similar populations, similar climates, similar geography, similar latino-american culture, the one thing that is completely different is it's economic development. Texas has no state taxes, less regulation, less state run programmes, cheaper products, cheaper housing, Texas is more free market. You go to Texas and you see an abundance of things that would be considered a luxury in California. Things like 3 bedroom housing with a front yard and a garden with a swimming pool is common. That's the free market.
The issue of wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.
Let's say there are 10 people in a room and they all have $10. 1 of the 10 people decide to write a book and decide to sell it for $1.
5 of the 10 people decide to buy the book. Now the author has 5 customers all willing to pay $1 for the book. the author now has $15, 5 people have $9, and 4 people have $10. No immorality was done but look, there's inequality. It's not an injustice.
The thing with capitalism is there’s a large percentage of people that are limited. They don’t have the capabilities of others. That’s where we blame the system. Yet the problem is equality. People want to be free but their successes finically undermine others. The solution isn’t socialism but a better regulation of capitalism.
In theory you need traits from communism socialism and capitalism for society to function in balance with every person. With all of their natural capabilities and talents.
So when is "celebrity body issues" coming out?
When they die
I'm imagining Allain de Botton delivering this as a public lecture and this being the first question from the audience during the Q &A session. Lol
It's amazing how suddenly the comments are full of economic experts...
It's only common sense, which mustn't so common since you're lacking
its called Google..You can check instead of just believing what you read or hear..
Rackets lol and everything you find on google is accurate
Understanding the economic systems doesn’t take expertise. It’s pretty basic. And when you talk about the differences that’s all you need.
“Italian merchants likely learned the (double-entry book keeping) method from their interaction with ancient Indian merchants from the sea trade; the double-entry system was founded on a "Jama-Nama" system which had debits and credits in a reverse order” - JR Edwards, A history of financial accounting.
It is not that difficult to find the true source. But it spoils the narrative of the “industrious west” from where all the ingenious stuff of the modern world originate!
Alexander The Great spread the Greek culture of reason to mystical India. The resulting rationality may have guided the discovery of double-entry. Alexanders teacher was Aristotle, the discoverer of scientific method.
"Material advancement has been evident in the world, but there is need of spiritual advancement in like proportion." ~ 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahai Faith
4:56 you forgot looting & exploiting colonies bro. That was the main reason
the london industry didnt grew because of the colonies lol how would that work?
@@pedronabais1456 taxation and exploitation of resources
@@__-ls4vk pretty sure britain lost money on the colonies no? either wya the bulk of the money came from the reaosns listed in the vid
There is no "main reason". Want it or not, capitalism allows for economies to grow. Not saying is perfect, or that there is no poberty or explotation, but we just need to accept this truth.
@@PandasUncle Britain wasn't thinking short term with their plans. There's a reason the US has conflict mineral policies. The industries that were setup by the imperialistic powers last century (such as the diamond industry) were built to extract resources and build dependence. That's why you'll see so much corruption in the continent of Africa. The leaders were planted with connections from foreign countries who helped to build the infrastructure and were funded by outside countries to restrict the flow of resources to certain countries. Just look at what happened in Nicaragua as well... funding from outside countries destroyed any hope of building free enterprise during that time. Not shifting any blame away from the leader's of these countries but there were outside pressures and going against them back then was not a good idea - especially if you did not have a strong military.
I'm for a world that has "holiday camps" with nude volleyball 7:29
Go to Wannsee, between Berlin and Potsdam - goes on every Summer. It's also the place where the Nazis planned their 'Final Solution'.
@@dexstewart2450 sounds good
I will sell you a ticket for 40 dollars
Yes, a nice ass. I spot it too😂👍
he may use his di*ks to hit the volleyball, it's a skill
3:50 so if slavery was economically efficient we would still have it, lovely
+Guten economically in the long run = logically and fairly
Capitalism is voluntary exchange- slavery is not.
as long as sense (and meaning) in life is given by money (capital), we're f····d. And yes, Capitalism is voluntary exchange, but as long as it gets any profit. If slavery would get you any profit, it could be considered then (as logical and even as fair). In fact, regarding actual exploitation and general world poverty, I don't think we're very far from a form of slavery. That's why is so dangerous a claim such as Locke's who wanted that Poetry was not taught anymore in schools... because it was not practical enough (that is, because you cannot make money out of it).
I completely agree, there are masses of individuals across the globe who only partake in their line of employment because they have no other choice due to extremely low living conditions.
If it didn't create profit there would be no incentive for the producer to produce.
Good that this addresses the specific flaws of capitalism we can focus on instead of engaging in outrageous utopian thinking which can easily make us feel good about ourselves.
The biggest flaw of capitalism is the need for a focused mind. With socialism and fascism, you can evade focusing and wait to be told what to do.
this totaly sums up our world and how we lived in it
*The love of Capitalism is the root of all evil* How about that?
Capitalism itself, cannot be good or bad - it's merely a system. It's *people* that do good or evil.
There can be and are inherent issues within capitalism, which make it somewhat evil.
systems can be good or bad, I feel like a syetm is like a machine...its built to do something and to do it a particular way, the way its built in some ways does condition or encourage how it is used
thats the left critique, there are productive and positive aspects of capitalism, but as a machine it seems to naturaly produce some quite bad things and seems to encourage or conditiion people to participate and even benefit from them, the history of capitalist sucess has also ben followed by a history of its excess and destructive capability which has to be regulated and tamped down, the trouble is these crisiss seem to keep happening which begs the question, as a machine is it fixable?
@@matthewjanney2399 I partly agree. However, I still think *it is our values and decisions that have the final say*
Your 'machine' analogy lacks human input - whereas, capitalism, like any other system, is conceptual and therefore, its results are determined by people.
A physical machine without human input, say a computer or a motor, is possible to improve upon.
Socialism is immoral because it forcefully takes money from the person who had earned it, to someone who hasent in the name of equality. That's theft , that's pure evil.
controversial Indian That’s closer to capitalism than socialism. Under socialism workers make what their labour is worth, under capitalism there’s always a capitalist stealing some of the fruits of your labour despite not having worked for them.
Capitalism has launched Humanity into the Modern Age. But, Capitalism is not only a system of economics; Capitalism is a system of governance, and a system of social control.
Very good and unusually honest summary of the situation in East Germany. Many East Germans still had relatives in West Germany, who would sometimes send packages with products from West Germany, like coffee, chocolate, or clothes (some of which were ironically produced for export in East Germany). West German TV antennas radiated far into East German territory, and a majority could (and did) watch West German TV commercials.
This steady, but slow trickle of the luxuries of capitalism did more to fuel the reunification than fear of the Stasi or any political issue, because it concerned the whole population, not only a small elite of dissident intellectuals.
But "Celebrity Body Issues" is my favorite show! 😂
Tractor production on channel 1 had more viewers..
You a simp
Love this series but I was kind of disappointed with no mentioning of Milton Friedman, especially when an advocate of capitalism was Bill Clinton instead of Friedman...
Yeah, amazing uses a government official to represent Capitalism when Capitalism doesn't really need government.
Twerking Videos - 1B views
Knowledge Videos - Trying to close a million
this the world we live in
you think you're better than us or something ?! Twerking is the best fuck you !
Hey, it’s already 2 million views bro.
3 months ago it wasn't tho..😅
i guess due to lockdown
sometimes i do twerk videos with my dad (check my channel and leave a comment and a like guys). It's a very good way to stay healthy actually.
Thomas Dupont
*Delete this Now*
"Dangerous ideas bottled behind a silver tongue only leads to tragidy"
Hahaha I love this - what in your eyes is the dangerous idea?
@Darío Puertas good guess, but it was capitalism..
I think this video misses an important point: people aren't upset that some have more than others.it's that banks have been allowed (particularly in the US) to run amok.
We seriously need a History of ideas - Eugenics, most don´t know it´s surprisingly long history.
agreed
+The Hunt for Red May Right? Most only know what came out of it.. like the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood...ehem
nanomantube Eugenics has a long (and rather dark) history in the US and Canada too. Unfortunately the topic is often reduced to one of historys biggest crimes.
All the way back to Sparta. And before. Eugenics can be seen in a grey light, not just a horrible one
GentleEsther exactly
Please include your references in the description box!
Yes!
definitely!!
Why would they do that if all they are doing is spreading beautiful and colorful propoganda?
God forbid you'd fact check them.
@@davehedric1543 oh, could you enlight us on what their "propoganda" is?
@@alafolieee it's obvious that making a video about capitalism without mentioning colonialism, slavery (more than a tiny box about Adam Smith), Marx and his contributions to understanding how the system works, labor exploitation as a source/necessary for profit, imperialist wars, is propaganda lol.
I am gradually working my way through these "History Of" videos; I invariably learn a lot.
This is the worst comment section I’ve ever seen.
Borlng as well
Yeah. Everyone here is missing the point.
@joe buffalo fam I watched this video a month ago and I'm too bored to watch it again so figure it out on your own.
Sorry if I sounded rude.
You are communist, so that's why.
Tyler Solvestri 🥱
Beautiful Explanation. But in a discussion about Capitalism...not even a single mention of the critique of capitalism by Marx and Engels. STRANGE🤔.
Because Marxism is evil.
It would be like introducing burger king and then mentioning how mc donalds just tastes better in a documentary about how burger king founded.
Marx and Engels are kooks with a political ideology. They are not economists and have nothing valuable to add on economic issues.
It is an 11 minute video. What do you expect.
Spartan 506 that’s the funniest fucking comment I’ve ever fucking seen. If you genuinely believe that, you are the fucking dumbest person to ever exist.
"The British economy is the largest in the world thanks to industry, ship building, cotton mills."( read colonization)
Got em
because of the boatload of gold the conquistadors returned to spain, and they didn't exactly understand inflation.
Bruh, colonization didn't really make much money at all. In fact, when Britain was debating whether to give autonomy to India, a British economist calculated Britain was actually losing money by keeping India.
+william hopper That was towards the end of colonization when Britain had drained all of it's wealth fighting the wars and also caused a famine in India.Churchill didn't care much.India was a pool which provided more than 2 million soldiers to the allies to fight the axis nations. A very little known fact.
At risk of sounding like a traitor that brings shame to my ancestors, I was born in Hong Kong and I can't quite imagine what this city would be like in my lifetime if it weren't for the British's colonization.
I like his voice very clear and understanble
The problem of capitalism starts with a "category error": treating the fundamental factors (land, labour, capital) as being identical in nature... "Why make a distinction between apples, trees, orchards, trimmers if they can be sold as commodities".
For example, the exploitation of workers is the direct consequence of the story that a worker can hire his labour only -- it being separate from his being -- the story of labour being "alienable".
This hides the unrealistic eventuality that "labour" simply wont be marketed when wages are competed down to below survival level.
The thing about capitalism is that it adjusts to humans to how they naturally are. It doesn’t impose upon them how someone thinks “people should be”
I hear from communists all the time
“People should be more generous. So we will force then to be”
That’s dangerous
Capitalism is like: people in power are greedy and oppressive so we would allow them to be. Thats dangerous too.
Clearly comunism is far from perfect. We can also see (especially nowadays) bad consequences of capitalism (no virtues or morality more valuable than money, dangerous amounts of power in rich peoples hands, faking science data for marketing reasons, naive believes in endless economic growth, producing landfills of rubbish products just to spin the sells, the lightbulb conspiracy, brainwashing marketing strategies, destroing whole ecosystems for income - to name a few).
We have two systems that are not working and we constantly compare them against one another. It's especially visible in my home country (post communist bloc), where if you dare to say a bad word about capitallism, society will call you a communist straight away.
There are other choices out there! It's not like we are trapped in this binnary prison, where we have to choose between capitalism or communism.
Read about resource-based ecconomy. Not saying thats the perfect system, but it's an example of other alternatives.
Our imagination is only limit here.
@@sahilasif40 you missed the point. It is not people in power that are greedy. The human kind is generally greedy.
@@lipperioss but the greed of a powerful multimillionare has far greater consequences than the greed of an average human being.
While i do get the point being made in the original comment; there is only so much liberty and power you can allow an individual to have before it turns dangerous
@@sahilasif40 Sahil Asif of course the greed of the powerful has more consequences... The more power you have, deeper will be the consequences. But human kind is made of a lot of things, including greed. And there is no way to eliminate greed from the mankind. Greed is intrinsically human. So it is not capitalism that is oppressive. The human being is oppressive. And no economic system will ever be able to avert that.
Nevertheless, capitalism is the only economic system to this moment to be able to improve life standards while keeping a minimum of freedom to the individuals.
Yup. We may question on why we are spending too much on less needed things but that's the reality of man. Our discontentment never ends. On the Capitalists a never ending contentment of wealth and on the consumers a never ending contentment of wants. They understand it. If we just reside on what is essential this world will be equal.
And extremely boring and unfulfilling. Don't forget that capitalism enables technological advancement.
@Makhi Makharadze capitalism doesn't automatically equate to medicine. Just no
Jesus wasn't angry that people were merchants, he was angry because they were selling their staff in the church.
It was disrespectful to God.
Jesus was angry because they were desecrating the house of God; His anger had nothing to do with economical theories.
They were dealing in usury, that was conveniently taken out in later doctrines.
@Giggler
Later doctrines? A doctrine is a belief of a church. So you're saying a belief in and older church was removed from the beliefs of newer churches?
That had better be what you were talking about because you desperately need to understand that we have literally thousands of articles from Hebrew and Greek that all still can be held in your hand to this day that all cross reference eachother and all were located in different areas. Even if that is what you meant you are still mistaken.
Nothing has been removed from scripture. Jesus removed the money changers just as Derek said. This was also the action that set up the Crucifixion. Jesus was keeping all commandments...and it was given to Moses that the act of usury is illegal.
God was pissed at the interest rates...just saying.
But the point is not about "economical theory" but "why trade is something desecrating" which can be developed into "what is in trade, that is bad enough to be prohibited to the point that no other than son of god use force to remove it from temple?".
Hmmmm... a bit rough on Adam Smith (10 mins in), a man of his times yet saw the failings of capitalism too.
thanks to capitalism, world poverty has dropped from more than 85% to 10% in 200 years. The problem is not capitalism, it is the consumer. Basically all of us, but it is solved as easy as if we think that those watches are not worth the suffering of the exploited employees, it would be enough not to buy them, then they will not be produced anymore because they do not generate income, period.
the only problem in capitalism is the lack of values and virtues of the majority of the population, but that can also be solved with a better education.
@@thomashidalgo6975 and yet thanks to capitalism (its the only way I know), it embedded inequality in countries, societies and systems at the same time as 'improving' things like poverty. The problem debatably is not the consumer, but capitalism's top-echelons existing on encouraging consumption of things 'consumers' dont need, as you intimate Thomas.
@@DavidHoodEdinburgh Corruption embedded inequality. And for the consumer thing you forget that it is the consumer who chooses what to buy, what company to invest in. And no communism isn't free of corruption it just gives all the means of production to the states basically giving them more power and if those ones get corrupted well ... That's why people are fleeing Cuba
@@DavidHoodEdinburgh don’t hate the player hate the game. The consumer nor the producers are at fault. Because of the consumer-to-producer relationship the world is overall improving!drastically. But to fix the issues of the game you need proper leadership from those who create the rules to capitalism. A worldwide agreement. Chinese labors laws would not fly in the USA. And the USA is no saint either. The consumer is heavily influenced by marketing tactics and media consumption in the USA! This should be regulated and more awareness should be provided to the consumers at the most basic education level that we already have at school. The question is why aren’t they doing it? Well the world is not on the same page at all. If we start making changes to help everyone in our country we have to make sacrifices overall. And that would lead to a vulnerable position against competitive nations across the planet. There should be no limit to how much a person can earn. But there should be many limits to how he obtains his earnings.
@JD just trying to understand the point JD, but it is not the consumer that causes the inequities in life, it is the unfettered elitist capitalism (not capitalism itself) that is the problem. Consumers buy and support corps and 'things' based on manipulated information, traditional structures they think are the same as good performance, when actually the global system extracts value for the few. @Matthew773, ditto, and yes indeed the world is improving, but in nation-states that are 'rich' foodbanks and poverty that could be reduced, is not, due to dogma and self-interest. It was always so. I agree with your thinking in part, re (carefully) educating children that they can, and are, being manipulated (and so are us adults!)
People really misunderstood Jesus in that verse about the market on the holy ground... I don't think this person has studied theology nor finance.
Oh really...Jesus tied a knot in his belt (tooling up) and said 'Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade', seems pretty clear to me. And as for finance, capitalism is the race to the bottom, because competition demands it...not that difficult. You capitalists don't mind getting bailed out with all that tax money though when it goes belly up.
@@smellslikethinice1107 I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Jesus was not against trade. He was against disrespecting the purpose of the temple. There is a distinction.
His earthly father was a carpenter, and his own disciples were tradespeople. I strongly doubt that they consumed all they produced, all the fish they caught, all the furniture they made...
@@midkort Obviously you have no understanding of what I wrote, and no understanding of true capitalism. What we have now (UK) is not capitalism, it is fascism .
@@smellslikethinice1107 Fair enough, let me clarify. I was not commenting on capitalism, etc.
My comment was only in response to the interpretation of what Jesus did in the temple.
@@midkort He was angry and stood up to the authorities, that was His actions,but what He thought, no one truly knows do they
It feels like everything in Capitalism is just money. The poor get poorer and the rich richer. Almost like no one is truly free.
Nice video, it's good to see how different ideologies have evolved through history, see how different people view them and practiced them.
I think our greatest problem today is not how we make capitalism more beneficial for all, but how we prepare our transition from capitalism during a time when technological progress is rapidly replacing the functionality of capitalism in the development of civilization. In hindsight, Marxism is almost prophetic, yet entirely lacking the vision and optimism to predict that capitalism could birth the very key to liberation from capitalism, the microchip. We're at the very threshold of a future where labor as we know it can be eradicated as if it were a debilitating disease like polio. How we approach this monumental achievement will determine how painful this transition will be. We can see the symptomatic anxiety of the social challenges we face reflected in modern politics, as social democracy attempts to alleviate the burden of inevitable change while the rising authoritarian right struggles to hang on to the status quo through mythologized sentimentality. Capitalism, like so many former economic and social paradigms, is nearing the end of it's usefulness to the project of civilization. The question therefore is not how do we improve capitalism but how do we let go of capitalism to embrace a new era full of human potential.
Great video! I've learned a lot with you, keep doing a great job.
So the problem isn't the system itself but the people who acts cruel when implementing it.
there is a bit of a mischaracterization of Smith in this
how so?
@@nashmishah6064 Smith actually criticizes capitalism pretty heavily www.heraldscotland.com/news/12758941.adam-smith-the-father-of-capitalism-and-one-of-its-fiercest-critics/
true
@@nickhall1632 yeah exactly haha people who call Smith the godfather of capitalism should probably actually read smith
And Jesus
its not capitalism that caused the abundance of products, its science and technology. so capitalism is just a way to rule people, the Ideology of a plutocracy.
Lol what? No. Not even close. It is capitalism.
+Ibnziyad Tariq Science and technology would be useless if their methods were never permitted to be practiced: What point would there be in developing faster farming techniques, if you would not be allowed to sell crops freely/independently at the market by the time harvest comes around?
Max Fuller your right bu t this is not capitalism, this free market, capitalism is privileging the ones with capital over the ones with none (workers).
+Ibnziyad Tariq Capitalism in itself isn't plutocracy. But capitalism is a fairytale dream that would (and have) self-destruct into plutocracy.
+Ibnziyad Tariq So free markets =/= capitalism? Or is it that free markets always lead to capitalism?
The contribution of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Colonialism to the Industrial Revolution in Britain should forever haunt Capitalism and its foundation.
The Macrobian Nomad fiat currency manipulation by the central banks should haunt your dreams every night. We are on the cusp of an inflationary depression all because you morons don’t understand the difference between gold and currency
@@actualideas8078 the difference is that at least you can make electronics and nuclear research hardware out of gold, on the other hand once made currency is useless except for the reforging of coins into metal tools
This video is pretty impressive actually
I am pro freedom in most cases but when automation becomes fully viable I cant see how people will live without universal basic income. The opportunities just wont be there for some people.
UBI will just create a large class of degenerates ( see mouse utopia experiment) , the Automation Revolution should be used to give people the chance to work less hours in better conditions.
luddite. new jobs will come to take the old, they'll just be higher demanding, and more technical. this isn't even considering the likelihood that we will use technology to modify ourselves, so this fear mongering is pointless. communism is more viable in a "post-scarcity" future. good thing that future will never come, and that even if it did come, capitalism would still be 100 times better. :P
Why is this only been recommended to me now? Very interesting
Joshua Merwine Please elaborate. Who’s agenda? In what ways are they doing so?
@@alexanderjames5689 The basic principles of Capitalism goes against a lot of interest groups.
The government technically has little to no role in Capitalism. Zero role if you ask an Anarcho-Capitalist or only in extracting force and coercion from society if you ask an Objectivist.
Government people want something to do, so the more time and people enter government the more they want to control the society and its economy. In a democracy it is by promising voters stuff.
Government controls most of public education in Western society (which in itself is socialistic already). It is not malicious, but the curriculum is not there to teach you about Capitalism properly. The school system wants to create obedient citizens that are at least ok at joining wider society and the economy. Governments don't want to teach children that the State is actually a near useless and unnecessary institution.
Governments control the police force.
Government controls the banking sector through central banking institutions like the Federal Reserve (US). The existence of central banking is explicitly against free market/ Capitalism.
Marxism is explicitly anti-Capitalist. His prophecy is Capitalism will regularly seed its own destruction (riots and economic downfalls) and Communism is the path forward for a better life. At least 10% of university professors self-describe as Marxists & the rest of universities are left-leaning in politics (Jonathan Haidt makes good research on this).
Many professors are critical theorists, a post-modern approach to society that deconstructs common share values. The philosophers of Post-Modernism were Marxists of the Frankfurt school. The anti-Capitalist theory survives in critical theorists.
Socialists are the practical applicators of Communism, so they don't like Capitalism either.
Hollywood is very left-leaning right now. The arts and music institutions that teach people are usually temperamentally left-leaning (compassionate, empathetic, equality).
Netflix and other streaming shows are businesses operating in very left-leaning cities like San Fransisco (Silicon Valley) and New York. So their movies are anti-Capitalist often.
Even though Capitalism is the mechanism that distributes their movies the premises of almost every movie is that Capitalism = Greed = Bad.
The religious groups borne from Christianity are suspicious of Capitalism.
There are not a lot of Capitalist-principled institutions in Western society right now. Even Wall Street uses the government as welfare (corporate bailouts).
Exactly. The video I was watching before this one had nothing related, and this video is full of miss-characterisations.
Gigajoule Candy thank you for your thoughtful response!
@@Rellikan you gave me more than any comment or video did about capitalism. Thank you! Would love more elaboration tho
So basically, capitalism when done right is great. Consumerism on the other hand is not?
Capitalism can, if it's heavily regulated and restricted in regards to how and where it's allowed in our societies, at its very best still only be "a good enough bad thing," but due to the inherent nature of capitalism it's also always going to oppose the common good and interests of the people and will always strive towards tearing down the regulations and restrictions, making its way towards a fascist ideology where higher values are supplanted with materialistic and monetary values.
Consumerism, corporatism, commercialism and similar things, though? Yeah, they cannot ever be anything but bad...
Most of Europe run capitalism and everyone get healthcare
In USA everything is companies.
@@eavyeavy2864 But due to the rise of liberalism, many European nations are starting to allow privatized healthcare, which undermines the public healthcare system and, by extension, the health of its citizens. Primarily because, under a liberal system, healthcare becomes less about caring for the health of humans and more about making healthcare profitable, and this dehumanization spills over into the public healthcare sector as well. For example, the doctor who took care of my grandpa when he had a stroke and fell into a coma _reassuringly_ said to my mother, my grandpa's own daughter, that it was a pity that they couldn't find grandpa's medical records before they had managed to wake him up because, if they had, they naturally would've let him peacefully pass on. So yeah, lucky thing they _didn't_ find his medical records in time and could kill him off. Not least of all because the extra couple of months they gave him were enough for him to patch things up with my aunt... Seriously, liberalism and capitalism will be the ruin of all us... in fact, it IS the ruin of us all...
@@GrahamChapman Unfortunately, capitalism is the best option of all the horrible options we have.
@@p4th0gen No, it's not. The primary reason why we often think it is the best option is because we're literally being made to think it is. Once again this is something that liberalism has spawned; systematically promoting the idea that capitalism is the best alternative until, eventually, the propaganda has shaped the way we think about society, making it hard for us to even consider things from a new, non-capitalism-supporting angle.
There's this channel called "Philosphy Tube", maintained by a certain Oliver Thorne, and he made a series a while back titled "What Was Liberalism?" It's a pretty good series, each of the four episodes (plus two bonus episodes) being only about 10 minutes long, and I'd honestly recommend just about everyone to check it out at least once.
The problem with capitalism is consumerism.
People like buying junk.
So for you, the ideal is a cave, a chunk of raw bear meat and two rocks for music. There seems little difference from Puritan Christianity and New Left early Marxism.
@@theinternetisnotreal1 Junk for anti-capitalists=anything beyond the dirt-poor, near-starvation poverty of 200,000 years prior to capitalism. Your death-worship is recognized. Capitalism is the only social system consistent w/the objective needs of mans life.
TeaParty1776 it’s only consistent with the needs of the powerful. to sustain the influx of unnecessary shit people are manipulated into buying, workers must be exploited, they must suffer, and no one seems to mention how the land and economies of poorer countries are ripped apart to maintain wealth in the western world. and the ideology of it is to constantly grow. it’s absurd how it could be defended, but I guess there is a class of people who truly enjoy it
@@punchgod Free will. I don't have an IPhone. No one person is manipulated into buying anything.
Only your perceived self worth.
That's sin.
At it's base.
@@punchgod Yes, the West stole its scientific-industrial-capitalist civilization from primitive savages who had not invented rhe wheel. Marxism damages the minds power of focusing onto reality.
So, just gliding right over Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'?
Yeah, too many typos in that one
Work as mindless duty to God is not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You define by a non-essential. And production is the result of reason ,not faith.
Capitalism is merely a way of distributing resources. It's morally neutral. It exists within whatever framework of property rights a society deems moral. Its this framework of property rights that causes the problems, not capitalism.
Smith makes the same point @ 3.45. He also hints in is book, The Wealth of Nations, the error in regarding natural resources as property, that is the root cause of all of our current problems.
I support the fact that others have their own ideas.
I have faith that with the open discussion of competing ideas we will most often chose the better idea.
I believe that the two ideologies competing right now are of idea control vs freedom of thought and expression.
I chose freedom of thought and expression.
I agree both with what you’ve said and your stance on the issue.
Yes, but freedom of thought and expression can be dangerous if morally bad things are allowed in.
@@RRoxas65 That's life, many things that are good can be dangerous.
@@justchilling704 yes, but mostly. Good things can be good if done in the right way.
@@RRoxas65 I agree.
Back in my high school days, one professor handled copies of the book: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber during a lecture on the subject regarding Sociology in Religion. It was my first touch and though on how societies like those in capitalistic countries in the West originated around the common lives in Protestant communities.
I have heard that Smith's only use of the term invisible hand in Wealth of Nations was when talking about offshoring labor costs. He thought that capitalists would be prevented from doing this as if by an invisible hand by their concern for the health of their own nations' economies. He also said division of labor would make humans creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for humans to be. Also, according to a couple sources, Smith thought, along with his mentor David Hume, that sympathy for one's fellow participants in the market is what makes markets function efficiently.
Better yet, it's only mentioned once in a footnote.
This is an astute analysis, and maybe the best one I've ever heard
Failing to mention that capitalism left billions of people out of poverty is a sign of dishonesty.
Like with most videos, they aim not to cover the entirety of their chosen topics but instead focus on a few points which can fit into a manageable video. It is then down to the viewer to look for other material if so desired.
@Jon Snow You sound fun
Great video, but I'm surprised at there being no mention of Milton Friedman's "neocapitalism"/shock doctrine, which goes well beyond the historic capitalism most people seem to think remains unchanged today. The Reagen-Thatcher-Pinochet structures of the 80s are far more radical than Adam Smith, and are especially interesting to study in comparison to the post-1929 Keynes welfare state era which was totally skipped in this video, and seems at least worth mentioning.
But I understand how hard it is to fit the huge amount of things that could be said of our current world order in just a short UA-cam video. Great job, and thanks, as always!
P.S: I'm from Chile, and here capitalism, neocapitalism, Freidman and Pinochet are all very touchy subjects. Look into the "Chilean Miracle" if you're curious about capitalism failing at it's finest!
You mean the Reagan Thatcher duo, not Nixon. Oh, by the way, I dont think Pinochet was a thinker (neither was Reagan).
The true ideologues of Chile are Jaime Guzman and his catholic conservative predecesors, and the Chicago Boys which came from the libertarian thinking of Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman...
***** You're absolutely right, thanks for the fact-check.
Pinochet was most definitely not a thinker, as you say, but it's just generally easier to refer to him as a figure in general than trying to explain the group of hugely talented but (in my mind) highly disagreeable people behind him.
Realm of the Unreel I understand that Pinochet was an authoritarian ,but didn't the economy benefit from free market policies?
***** Yeah, advisers like astrologists.
Realm of the Unreel There's a few threads missing so far from the School of Life's vids-- maybe they'll be coming before long. A fundamental one to many modern capitalists is Bastiat and his argument, essentially, that the individual is supreme. He deems any concerns and rules society might have that aren't identical to concerns and rules of the individual as illegitimate, and is the basis not only of an entire branch of economics (the Austrian School), but also provides the right wing ruling class their necessary "moral justification for selfishness" as J. K. Gailbraith famously quoted. Bastiat's "Broken Window" makes sense to me (though I think it may be misapplied to criticize any form of stimulus), but his ideas regarding individual vs society I don't think add up, I'd like to see more coverage of him that isn't just from the Mises institute cheerleading team. I suppose an entire subseries on economics could be done, but it might be tricky-- like trying to include Ayn Rand as a philosopher, no matter what you say about them, if it isn't glowing support you'll be accused by their active fanbase of misinterpreting what they say...
Funny how I'm listening to a video, pointing out the flaws of capitalism on the internet in my smartphone through my wireless earbuds. I am reminded of the code "of course... But may be..."
I love how you don't mention Mercantilism.